PRIVATE BUSINESS

National Trust (Northern Ireland) Bill

Considered; read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Brent PCT

Sarah Teather: If she will make a statement on the financial position of Brent primary care trust.

Andy Burnham: At quarter 3 of 2006-07, Brent teaching PCT reported a forecast deficit of £17.6 million. The NHS as a whole reported a small surplus, and we expect the final position to show further improvement. We will publish quarter 4 of NHS finance report in June.

Sarah Teather: At the Department's instructions, Brent primary care trust is embarking on a devastating series of cuts, including to health visitors, drug, alcohol and sexual health services, mental health, and services for children with special needs. Will the Minister apologise for the long-term impact those cuts will have on the lives of my constituents; and will he go back and reconsider?

Andy Burnham: May I point out to the hon. Lady that it is a statutory duty of all NHS organisations to break even? I accept that we are dealing with issues that concern services for vulnerable people, which I accept are matters of huge importance to the hon. Lady's constituents, but may I point out that the PCT and the council both serve her constituents and that it cannot be in their best interest to stoke up a row between the PCT and the council. The only solution is to support a sensible agreement to ensure the continuation of services to her constituents. I hope that she will drop her political posturing and work to that end.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has to be dialogue between the local authorities and the PCT to ensure seamless health care? In the past 12 months, the Lib-Dem/Tory-run council has failed to have any positive meetings with the PCT, failed to provide any social care services to the people of Brent, and failed to respond to any of my letters. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) has proved successful at doing is producing leaflets saying "Save our NHS", which does nothing for anybody? Does he agree that they should stop—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has made her point.

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her positive approach to this situation. It has to be in the interests of vulnerable people everywhere that councils and PCTs put aside their differences and work together for the benefit of those people. A blinkered approach or one where people are casting blame will not get us anywhere. It is important to get agreement on these important issues and I understand that the Minister for Local Government and the Minister of State, the noble Lord Hunt, will soon meet to discuss how progress can be made on securing such agreement, which will be in the interests of constituents.

Independent Sector Treatment Centres

Bob Russell: If she will make it a requirement for independent sector treatment centres to pay a levy towards the costs incurred by the national health service in training staff.

Patricia Hewitt: The first wave of independent sector treatment centres was designed to provide extra capacity to help cut waiting times for NHS patients. Six of these are now providing training as well. All phase 2 schemes will require training to be made available as part of the contract.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but it does not detract from the fact that these private health centres are privatisation of the national health service by stealth. Will she not agree that every patient who is forced to go to one of these independent centres will help to undermine the financial stability of local hospital trusts— [Interruption]—and laughing is not the answer?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. Independent sector treatment centres are not privatisation by stealth or any other means. Patients are not forced to go to ISTCs and, indeed, we are extending patient choice. From 1 July, patients needing orthopaedic treatment will have a free choice of more than 200 hospital and treatment centres all around the country. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support that and also support the fact that more than nine out of 10 patients said that their NHS hospital treatment was either good, very good or excellent. We should be proud of that, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not.

Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that independent treatment centres, alongside fantastic NHS staff, have contributed enormously to the reduction in waiting lists? Our staff are fantastic as a result of the quality of their education and training. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in future contracts for the independent sector, we will try to ensure that we train the staff we need so much for our wonderful NHS?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I can give her the assurance that in the second wave contract, training opportunities will be required from all the independent sector treatment providers. Indeed, the ISTCs will be expected to appoint directors of clinical and medical training, who will work with the post-graduate deaneries and other parts of the NHS family in order to ensure that the best possible training opportunities are available to doctors and other health care professionals.

Julie Kirkbride: Working on the same principle, would the Secretary of State care to estimate how much it would cost the British taxpayer if we were to refund all the foreign countries that had invested in training their own staff who are now working in the British national health service?

Patricia Hewitt: I certainly cannot make that estimate, but the hon. Lady raises an extremely important point. As she probably knows, we were the first country in the world to adopt an ethical recruitment policy in our national health service. That means, for instance, that we do not take nurses from South Africa or other parts of Africa. We try to ensure that, just as medical professionals come to Britain for training from some other countries, we support the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, that desperately need to train and keep their own health care professionals.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State promise that she is still very much in favour of this experiment? I would like to see these centres in the Reading area, where they would expand capacity and help people in my area who cannot get the treatment that they need at the moment. Will she promise not to rig the system against them in the way that many Labour Members seem to wish to do?

Patricia Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point. It is clearly right that independent sector treatment centres should make training opportunities available; that is one of the lessons that we learned from wave 1. I completely agree with him, however, that the centres have helped to cut waiting times for NHS patients in many parts of the country, and all the treatment that they provide is on the NHS and free at the point of need. That is what matters to patients.

Peter Lilley: How does the Secretary of State square what she has just said about having an ethical policy on recruiting from Africa with the fact that the Government have issued work permits for 50,000 nurses and doctors from Africa since 2000? Is it not clear that they are coming to agencies in order to get round the ban on direct recruitment to the NHS?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have just said, we have stopped the process of direct recruitment—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] No, we have stopped the process of direct recruitment into the NHS of nurses from developing countries in Africa and elsewhere. There is, however, a real problem with some agencies that recruit people from those countries. I am not sure what level of regulation the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but that practice is difficult to control. We try to ensure, however, that they sign up to exactly the same principles as we have agreed for the NHS, and that people who come in through that route are not subsequently re-employed in the NHS.

NICE

Nick Palmer: If she will make a statement on the progress of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Ivan Lewis: Since its establishment in 1999, NICE has consolidated its position as the leading source of evidence-based guidance on specific health interventions and on broader care pathways. It has deservedly earned international recognition for its work.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I have always supported NICE and I still do. It is perfectly obvious that we need a central assessment point for new medications and treatments. Is he satisfied, however, that there is a sufficient flow of information and discussion between NICE and the companies and patient groups involved in the assessment process? Does he think that that process could be made more transparent?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that, in the context of modern science and health care, if NICE did not exist, we would have to create it. We are currently conducting an overall review of the way in which NICE reaches its conclusions; it began in April, and is due to report to the NICE board in November. In 2005, we introduced what is known as a single technology appraisal process, which enables NICE to speed up some of its decision-making processes. In addition, best practice guidance was issued to the NHS in December 2006, stating that if a clinical decision is made that a patient requires a particular form of medication, there is no requirement for the primary care trust to wait for the conclusion of the NICE appraisal to ensure that the patient has access to that treatment. Overall, NICE has been a tremendous success, but we are also in the process of reviewing its function, as is appropriate at this stage.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware of the use of miniature telescopic eye implants as a cure for age-related macular degeneration? This operation is available in many parts of Europe and in the United States, and one operation has been successfully completed by Brendan Moriarty, an eye surgeon in my constituency. Will the Minister urge NICE to look into this new operation as urgently as possible, as it will help people to retain their sight?

Ivan Lewis: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Macular degeneration is a real issue for an increasing number of our constituents. I was not aware of that specific intervention, but I think it right for us to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said, and then to decide whether the evidence that we have is sufficient for us to refer it to NICE as one of its priority considerations. Now that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, we will certainly have a look at it.

John Smith: Why is it that although the chief medical officer's recommendations on the prevention of hospital-acquired thrombosis were almost universally welcomed, shortly afterwards the NICE guidelines on the same topic seemed to contradict the original, leaving many health professionals aghast? Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into the matter, and ensure that no confused messages are being received by hospitals about a policy that could prevent 25,000 deaths?

Ivan Lewis: I will certainly look into the matter. It is important that, where possible, there is no ambiguity in the message that we send clinicians and primary care trusts on the front line. I cannot comment at this stage on whether there was a difference of opinion between the chief medical officer and NICE, but I will commit myself to investigating that, and to ensuring that whatever message is appropriate is clearly conveyed.

Stephen Dorrell: I agree with the Minister that NICE is one of the successes of the Government's health policy over the past 10 years, but is it not time, as part of the review to which he referred, to look again at the principles according to which Ministers retain control of the agenda of issues that NICE examines? Should not NICE have an opportunity to set aspects of its own agenda?

Ivan Lewis: I think that if we are to conduct a fundamental review now that NICE has existed for some time, one of the issues that ought to be reviewed is the relationship between Ministers and the organisation, as well as the relationship with Department of Health officials. We need to ensure that we get the responsibilities of the respective decision-makers absolutely right. It is important for clinicians and primary care trusts to be clear about the position, but transparency is also important, so that patients know what to expect at a time of technological advances and increasingly complex conditions often associated with people living longer.

Tony Lloyd: May I refer my hon. Friend to the NICE review of the drug Alimpta, which is used to treat mesothelioma? Specialists fear that the original decision to refuse NICE approval was based on a failure to understand the clinical evidence, and in particular the fact that the drug is efficacious in prolonging both life and quality of life. Those are important considerations for people who will certainly die of mesothelioma.

Ivan Lewis: NICE is actively considering the issue. I understand that, according to the guidance, those who are already receiving the treatment are entitled to continue to receive it, but no final decision has been made. I suggest that my hon. Friend and others make representations to ensure that NICE reaches an appropriate conclusion.

Evan Harris: NICE does a good job for the Government in rationing health care in a rational way, but is not one of the key requirements of rationing that it should be explicit and transparent? As everyone else now recognises that a treatment that costs more than £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year will not be approved by NICE, will the Minister confirm that that is also his understanding? Such transparency would help politicians to accept that that is what is happening.

Ivan Lewis: No, I will not confirm that. It seems to me that the appropriate context for such a judgment and such a debate is the review, which seeks to be clear about NICE's function. It also seems to me that we either believe in the need for an organisation such as NICE, in the context of a modern NHS and massive advances in technology and science, or we do not. The use of words like "rationing" by the Liberal Democrats does not accord well with this debate.

John Baron: NICE was established to deal with the problem of postcode lotteries, but a key problem is that many new drugs awaiting appraisal are subject to terrible regional variations and lack of funding. A recent freedom of information survey by the Conservatives showed that people in England are going blind because cash-strapped primary care trusts are not funding Macugen, which has been approved in Scotland. Some PCTs have been turning down all requests for Macugen although they come from clinicians, with the average PCT funding only two patients, despite an estimate by AMD Alliance that 100 patients a year in every PCT could benefit. Will the Minister now investigate, as a matter of urgency, why his own guidance to PCTs that funding should not be withheld simply because NICE has not issued guidance is being so readily flouted, before new drugs such as Lucentus suffer the same fate?

Ivan Lewis: We have moved to respond to the concerns that have been expressed as NICE's function has been developed. For example, we introduced the new single technology appraisal process in an attempt to speed up the process. We have also issued best practice guidance to primary care trusts, which makes it clear that where a clinician believes that a licensed drug is an appropriate way of treating a condition, there is no requirement to wait until NICE has concluded its appraisal process. The right way forward is a combination of speeding up the process and being absolutely clear about what we expect from primary care trusts. Members cannot have it both ways. We either devolve responsibility, power and decision making to the local level or we command and control from offices in Westminster and Whitehall. We cannot have a contradictory approach.

National Treatment Agency

John Mann: How many GPs sit on the board of the National Treatment Agency.

Caroline Flint: One GP sits on the board. His full-time job is director of public health for the south-west but he brings his knowledge and experience to the board. A GP in the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse clinical team liaises with the Royal College of General Practitioners and others to support effective delivery of policy and promotion of good practice within the primary care setting.

John Mann: The evidence from Sweden and France, as examined by my primary care trust, is unequivocal. Drug treatment is far more effective if primary care and GPs are put at the centre of it. Is it not time that we move towards having a bigger GP presence on the NTA so that primary care is in the mainstream of drug treatment in this country?

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has done in his area to achieve direct access to drug treatment services through GPs in the primary care setting. The "Bassetlaw Direct Access" drugs service has had tremendous results, with an 83 per cent. retention rate. I agree with my hon. Friend that GPs' experiences should be represented. However, we are also trying to make sure that we embed substance misuse as an issue in the medical colleges; on 30 April we published curriculum guidelines on substance misuse. We are also improving the opportunities for GP practices to provide access to drug treatment, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas. However, we will endeavour to do more.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the NTA values the contribution that GPs make in working with drug addicts and saving lives? However, how many GPs have been struck off by the General Medical Council for over-prescribing?

Caroline Flint: I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point, but the most recent figures—those for 2004-05—show that the number of GPs participating in shared care schemes for providing treatment to drug users has increased in the last 10 years from 20 per cent. to 32 per cent. Clearly we need to do more, but that is a good sign. We must embed the culture of understanding drug treatment in the earliest days of training. That is why providing the guidance to the medical colleges on 30 April was an investment in the future. I hope that more GPs will see this as one of the health roles that they should play in their communities.

NHS Finances

Tim Farron: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of measures put in place to improve the NHS financial position; and if she will make a statement.

Andy Burnham: Restoring financial balance in the NHS was our top priority in 2006-07. There is now a stronger system for assessing the financial position of all NHS organisations and we are confident that these measures will help the NHS further to improve its financial position. At quarter 3, the NHS overall reported a small surplus, and we expect the final position to show further improvements.

Tim Farron: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Government changes to the resources, accounting and budgeting rules have removed £6.3 million of projected debt from my hospital trust in Morecambe Bay, leaving it in the surprise position of having a break-even budget for the forthcoming year. So far so good, but the Westmorland general hospital stands to lose its excellent heart and stroke unit as a result of an acute service review that took place last summer, which was in part driven by the short-term financial pressures. Now that those pressures have been—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has done well.

Andy Burnham: I think that I can guess where the hon. Gentleman's question was going. I also detected some hint of gratitude in his words for the extra £6 million for his trust this year, which will help to ease the financial position, and of course bring benefits to patients in his area. As he knows, a Cumbria-wide review of health services is being undertaken, which is expected to go out to public consultation in September. I hope that he will understand that I cannot make any concrete statements today about the precise proposals that will be made in that review, but I am sure that local health service planners will hear his words.

Jim Devine: When the Conservatives were in power, there was a consistency to NHS funding: all the health boards and authorities were in financial difficulties. Today, only a small minority have financial problems. Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement as to why that is the case?

Andy Burnham: It is not something that the Conservatives like to talk about, but when they left power the deficit, as a percentage of overall NHS expenditure, was far higher than anything seen in the last financial year. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the problems of overspending are now concentrated in a small number of organisations. It is the transparency of the financial regime that this Government have introduced that has enabled us to focus on that overspending and put in place measures to tackle it. As a whole, the NHS is benefiting. Last week, the Healthcare Commission reported that nine out of 10 patients say that the care they receive is good, very good or excellent, and that was in a year in which we have tackled the financial difficulties in parts of the NHS.

Simon Burns: Given that health trusts such as mine in mid-Essex are having to take some difficult decisions to improve their financial position, could the Minister give an assurance that he and his colleagues will be sensitive when determining future independent treatment sectors—which may benefit patient care in some parts of the country—so that they do not cause a setback to those trusts that can fulfil their commitments and targets but would be adversely affected if the decisions were not taken sensitively?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman's trust has benefited from the reversal of the resources accounting and budgeting rules as they affect NHS trusts. As predicted at quarter 3, his trust will post a surplus this year. Any changes to local health care will have to be carefully considered, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will make changes when they are in the direct interests of patients. There is evidence to show that where independent sector treatment centres have been introduced, they have had the effect of challenging local NHS trusts, and waiting lists have fallen dramatically as a result. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would support any solution that produces the best results in terms of access to the system for his constituents.

David Anderson: Is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Nursing has estimated that it would cost £60 million to pay the full award proposed for nurses by the pay review body? Does he accept that that is a price worth paying, and if not, does he have a strategy for dealing with the industrial dispute that may occur?

Andy Burnham: I know that my hon. Friend works hard on these issues and I hope that he agrees with me that the position of nursing staff under this Government is considerably better than what we inherited in 1997. I also hope that he accepts that the decision taken in respect of public sector pay was a decision taken across the public sector, with the exception of the armed forces, with regard to maintaining the strong economy that this Government have also produced. While those are difficult decisions, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that they are taken for the best of reasons.

John Penrose: Over the past two years, my local primary care trust has received above average increases in spending, which are tremendously welcome and have helped to close the gap between the Government's own target funding formula and the actual amount of money that the trust receives. Would the Minister agree that it would be folly to allow that process to go into reverse and that it is therefore important that the North Somerset primary care trust continues to get above average funding settlements in future?

Andy Burnham: That is an excellent question. It was missing the "Vote Labour!" bit at the end, but I think that it would have come if the hon. Gentleman had carried on. Yes, we are extremely proud of the money that we have put into PCTs like his around the country, and I am absolutely confident that the huge improvements in health care in recent years will be sustained. An extra £8 billion is going into the NHS this year, and that will produce substantial improvements for patients. I hope that he will continue to support the Government in working towards a well funded and improving NHS.

Neil Turner: My hon. Friend will be aware that proper financial management has ensured that no PCT in the north-west will be top sliced this year to subsidise poor management in other areas. He will know too that many north-west PCTs receive less than the formula funding says they should. How is it that they can stay within budget, while others receiving more than their formula funding overspend?

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the persistent way in which he has raised matters relating to PCT finance. He is absolutely right: for reasons of basic fairness, we need the maximum health resources in areas where health inequalities are greatest and where ill health is entrenched—such as the borough that he and I represent. Also, I thank him for congratulating the north-west strategic health authority on ensuring that PCTs in the area are not being top sliced. That will enable PCTs such as his and mine to get on with the job of improving public health in our borough. The next funding allocation round will deal with the question of whether we can make further progress towards bringing all PCTs nearer their target allocations, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Tony Baldry: This year, the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Hospital Trust must save £23 million, so will the Minister give some guidance about PFI repayments? Next year, the trust will have to make PFI repayments worth between £30 million and £36 million. Will the Department take PFI repayments into account when it sets the total sum for trust budgets, or will trusts have to make cuts to meet those repayments in future years?

Andy Burnham: When trusts plan new hospital developments, it is crucial that the decisions taken be sustainable and affordable in the long term. The Government have been reviewing all PFI schemes to ensure that they are precisely that—affordable, and the right size for future requirements. When spending is allocated to local health economies, we must take account of the population's relative age, health need and deprivation. We will continue to do that when we make allocations to PCTs.

Medical Training Application Service

David Taylor: What recent representations she has received on the performance of the medical training application service.

Patricia Hewitt: The Department has received over 1,300 letters on the topic of Modernising Medical Careers and MTAS this year. Department officials have also had meetings with, and representations from, many organisations, including the royal colleges, the British Medical Association and Remedy UK.

David Taylor: What lessons does the Secretary of State believe there are to be learned from the recent actions of the BMA's outgoing chair, Dr. James Johnson?

Patricia Hewitt: James Johnson's resignation is a matter for the BMA. It would not be appropriate for me to comment.

Peter Bottomley: Most of the House will welcome the service that James Johnson has given over recent years, to the BMA and in other ways. My question to the Secretary of State has to do with MTAS. Does the Department recognise that examination candidates who want to check whether their marks have been added together correctly— or whether their papers have been marked at all—should get an appropriate response before the end of round 2?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Information Commissioner's recent ruling. As a result of the commissioner's letter to the Department, a meeting is being arranged between him and appropriate officials to agree the way forward.

Louise Ellman: I am aware that the Secretary of State has apologised for the way in which MTAS was carried out. In my meetings with junior doctors, who are extremely concerned about the situation, it became clear that they have a strong commitment to, and belief in, the national health service, so will my right hon. Friend indicate how we can reassure those doctors that they are indeed valued?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the enormous commitment of junior doctors, and other health care professionals, to the NHS. In relation to recruitment to medical training, I stress that the interviews in round 1, which include an interview for every applicant, are nearly complete and, subject of course to the outcome of the judicial review, job offers will start to be made as soon as the result of the judicial review is known. By sorting out the very real problems and distress that have arisen this year, we will indeed be able to reassure junior doctors in particular about how much we value them and to ensure that they have a good future in the NHS.

David Ruffley: Ministerial mismanagement led to the computer chaos that is the medical training application service, which has failed to deliver a fair, open, transparent and efficient selection process for junior doctors, and even threw in for good measure a massive breach of personal security. Can the Secretary of State tell us today how many available training posts there are now for junior doctors and how many applicants there are? If we have those two facts, we can calculate how many thousands of junior doctors will not get a training place this August.

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said before, across the United Kingdom there are about 32,700 eligible applicants in the MTAS system, of whom more than 30,000 are already employed in the NHS. There are 23,500 training posts in total, including the GP training posts for which recruitment is separate from MTAS. Let me stress again that thousands of the applicants are currently employed by the NHS in non-training posts and all those jobs—in total, more than 30,000—will continue to be needed to ensure that patients continue to receive the excellent care the NHS provides.

Madeleine Moon: What is my right hon. Friend's assessment of the article in  The Independent today that argues that we should not get excited about the MTAS situation, because due to the expansion in the number of doctors in our medical schools under the Labour Government there will be greater competition for some of the best training jobs?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I thought that the editorial in  The Independent this morning was a breath of fresh air and rationality when the media have not really been characterised by accurate or rational reporting on this subject. The reality is that there are more junior doctors, and indeed other healthcare professionals, in training for the NHS than ever before. There has always been intense competition for the specialty training posts that lead to a consultancy for successful applicants. That competition is intense this year, but more doctors and even better trained doctors, with the best of them becoming consultants, is all good news for patients.

Hywel Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree that the ability to speak in Welsh is a valuable occupational qualification for doctors working with children and older people—

Patrick Cormack: In Wales.

Hywel Williams: Yes—and some in England. Where was that valuable occupational qualification addressed in the application form or in the application process?

Patricia Hewitt: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to learn that we do not propose to make Welsh an occupational qualification for doctors in England.

Rosie Cooper: Junior doctor rotation has always been a difficult time, and over all the time when I was involved in the health service many a junior doctor did not get the specialist job he or she wanted. We have heard about the intense competition due to the massive increase in doctors in training, so to go on from what has been said already, will my right hon. Friend indicate what support is available for junior doctors who are trying to get through the process at present?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that at this point we should focus on the solutions, rather than simply restating the problem. As I have indicated, job offers for round 1 will be made, subject to the outcome of the judicial review and as soon as we know that court judgment. Detailed information on that process is going out to applicants very shortly. Once we have the court judgment from the judicial review, we will be able to give applicants further details of how round 2 —the next round of recruitment—will be organised and the support that will be available to applicants throughout that process and beyond, as we look to the end of that further round of recruitment.

Norman Lamb: The Secretary of State will be aware that the statement of Nicholas Greenfield to the judicial review proceedings last week disclosed that on 25 April there was a report to the review group that disclosed that there were serious flaws with the software within MTAS. Was she informed of those serious problems at that time? If so, why did she not tell the House of those problems in her statement on 1 May? Is it not outrageous that in her statement last week she made no reference to the fact that she had no option but to abandon MTAS, because the system was not working?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman, I am afraid not for the first time, has simply misrepresented the position. First, MTAS has not been abandoned. It has been reopened to the postgraduate deaneries, which can continue to use it for the recruitment process. On the issue of the software, as I told the House last week, because of the continuing concerns of junior doctors— [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) should listen to the point that I am making, because it is important. Despite the security improvements that have been made to MTAS, because of the continuing concerns of junior doctors, we decided not to use it for the process of matching applicants to job offers. One of the concerns expressed by the junior doctor representatives on the review group related to the fact that the new software that would be needed to match the applicants to the jobs had not been completed and, because of the other problems, there would not be time to test it properly. That was part of the background to what I told the House last week about the continuing concerns that led us to decide not to use MTAS for the job offer process. That was a perfectly sensible decision. There is no question of misleading the House and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat that allegation.

Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State now tell the House how many additional training posts the review group has asked the Department of Health to provide for? This is the fifth time in over two months that I have asked the Secretary of State to make a commitment to provide for additional training posts and she still has not done so.

Patricia Hewitt: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we have the outcome of the judicial review. I will then announce how many additional training posts will be made available for round 2 and other details of round 2.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that on Sunday James Johnson said that the medical training scheme had been characterised by policy failures. Who does the Secretary of State hold responsible for those policy failures?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said in the House before, Modernising Medical Careers has been a joint effort by the Department of Health, Ministers, the royal colleges, the British Medical Association, the work force deaneries and many others, all of whom have been involved in addressing the problems that were highlighted many years ago by the BMA itself when it rightly called for a new system of training to replace the thoroughly unsatisfactory old system whereby senior house officers became known as the lost tribe because they simply did not have the support that was needed. We know perfectly well that the implementation of the application and recruitment system for this year has not worked properly. We have had a lot of problems with it—we hardly need to say that in this Chamber. We are sorting that out and I take responsibility for doing so.

Children's Diets

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What steps her Department is (a) taking and (b) planning to take to encourage the consumption of fruit and vegetables by children.

Caroline Flint: The Government have a number of programmes in place to improve the diet and awareness of healthy eating among children and young people. These include the new school meals standards, the healthy schools programme, healthy start, 5 a day, and the school fruit and vegetable scheme.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that much could be done to tackle child obesity and health inequalities if she was to work with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to build on the excellent initiative of providing free fruit and veg to schools and deliver free, compulsory, nutritious school meals for all children?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes a good point about tackling inequalities. I was pleased that the 2005 health survey for England showed that the number of children eating fruit and vegetables was increasing, with the number eating at least five a day going up to 17 per cent. from 10 per cent. in 2001. I am also pleased that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs household expenditure survey, which was published in January, shows that there has been the biggest increase in expenditure on fruit and vegetables for 20 years—it is up by 7.7 per cent. However, we can do more. This Government have given local authorities the power to decide whether they want to provide free school meals, and that matter is best dealt with locally. I am proud of our joint work with the Department for Education and Skills which has meant that more than 89 per cent. of schools are now taking part in a voluntary programme called healthy schools.

Peter Tapsell: Since every woman I have ever known, from my grandmother onwards, has tirelessly tried to persuade their offspring—and indeed their husbands—to eat more vegetables, what makes the hon. Lady think that her increasingly Orwellian Department will be more successful?

Caroline Flint: Well, clearly we support families making choices. I am pleased that families are increasingly making healthy choices for their children and themselves. I do not want to get into the hon. Gentleman's family background in relation to this—

John Bercow: He is a healthy figure.

Caroline Flint: I will leave others to comment on that. However, we must get the balance right when the Government are trying to intervene in areas that are their responsibility. We expect children to attend school; that is part of the law —[ Interruption. ] Even grammar schools. Given that we require children to go to school, it is part of our endeavour that when food and drink are provided at school, they should be the healthiest available. We must achieve a step change through which parents are enabled to make the right choices for their children. More and more parents are doing so with our support, rather than any lecturing.

Barbara Keeley: On Friday, I am visiting Ellenbrook primary school in my constituency to open its healthy schools vegetable garden. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the school on not only promoting healthy eating, but teaching children how to grow the herbs, fruit and vegetables that will be used in their school meals every day? Does she think that other schools should follow that example?

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend cites a really good example of a project that is seeking to achieve on several fronts. It is encouraging an understanding of the need to eat healthily and getting children out there to grow food, thus increasing their understanding of where it comes from. Alongside that, it increases physical activity at school. I am pleased to inform the House that from September, we will start a joint project with DFES and DEFRA: the year of food and farming. We will make links with local producers to find out what we can do to encourage more schools to purchase more locally the fruit and vegetables that can make a difference. Learning about how food is grown and its production to the point at which it ends up on the plate can make a difference to an understanding of a healthy diet.

Tim Loughton: Why does the Minister think that the recent evaluation of the school fruit and vegetable programme by the National Foundation for Educational Research found that it had no lasting impact on what children were eating, that only 27 per cent. of children achieved the five-a-day target, and that only a third of children were aware of what that target was—no doubt some thought that it referred to cigarettes? In any case, two thirds of the fruit and veg in the programme comes from overseas and half contains more than one type of possibly harmful pesticide. Some £77 million later, is this another costly, headline-grabbing, ill-thought-out Government initiative that has gone pear shaped?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman raises several questions. I understand that the article that appeared in  The Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago was based on a report that examined figures from about three years ago. We are evaluating the scheme at present and we will publish the figures shortly. However, the indicators show that both the consumption and purchase of fruit and vegetables are going up. The school fruit and vegetable scheme serves 2 million four to six-year-olds. Next time I get letters from Conservative Members asking me to extend the scheme, I will refer them to the hon. Gentleman.

Patient Choice

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: What plans her Department has to improve information on patient choice in England.

Patricia Hewitt: Next month we shall be launching a new online information service, NHS Choices, that will give patients easy access to information about conditions, treatments and hospitals. It will help the public to make informed choices about their own health, including when and where they receive treatment.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer, but I hope that we have made improvements and alleviated some of the teething problems that were experienced last year. A constituent came to see me over choose and book. She was referred to a dermatology department, and when she rang to make the appointment she was asked which hospital she wanted. When she asked for her local hospital, she was told that the waiting list was too long and was referred to one 20 miles away. When she said that she would prefer to wait a bit longer, she was told that that was not possible. The matter was eventually sorted through the patient advice and liaison service, but surely choice means that patients, if they wish, should be able to choose to wait a little bit longer to go to their local hospital.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that we have now made that crystal clear to NHS hospitals. A local hospital is obliged to treat all patients who choose to be treated there if that is clinically appropriate, and if a patient wants to wait longer than, for instance, the current six-month maximum target for in-patient treatment, of course they are free to choose to do so—provided they are told that when they make their booking. The way that we are extending choice for patients is in accordance with what patients themselves have said they want, and we know from experience over several years that it is a way of ensuring that hospitals respond by giving patients faster and better care.

Andrew Murrison: Patient choice means being treated with dignity, so what confidence can we have in a Government who may parrot choice, but whose claim to have delivered it to patients wishing to avoid mixed-sex wards is strongly contradicted by experience and by data published by the Healthcare Commission?

Patricia Hewitt: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the commitment that we made to ensure that everyone had single-sex sleeping accommodation, bathrooms and toilets did not extend—because it could not—to accident and emergency, and to medical admission units. That is one reason why there is a real difference between the reports that we have had from the hospital trusts and the reports of patient experience. Nevertheless—the chief nursing officer recently published press guidance on this—we have identified those hospital trusts that are really struggling to meet the commitment that patients are entitled to expect, that in, as it were, normal wards, they should have single-sex sleeping accommodation, bathrooms and toilets, and we are giving the NHS extra support, and indeed holding it accountable for delivering that. But I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the same Healthcare Commission survey found that even more hospital patients are satisfied or very satisfied with the care that they have had from the NHS in the last year.

Local Involvement Networks

Jeremy Wright: What assessment she has made of levels of public support for local involvement networks.

Rosie Winterton: rose—

Hon. Members: Hooray.

Rosie Winterton: Great. From our public consultation, we know that many people want to have a greater say over their health and social care services. The establishment of local involvement networks—LINKs—will give people far more opportunities to have a stronger voice over their local services.

Jeremy Wright: I thank the Minister for that answer, and the enthusiasm with which she gave it, but she will have been told, as I have, that one of the tools that members of patient and public involvement forums value most is the ability to inspect hospitals or other health care facilities, including, where they think it necessary, without notice. Given that those powers and that ability will be circumscribed for local involvement networks, and in the case of inspections without notice, removed altogether, does she not think that it is inevitable that the public will have less confidence in LINKs to protect their interests than they did in PPI forums?

Rosie Winterton: No, I do not think that they will, because I think that LINKs will actually be very powerful bodies in terms of their ability to get responses from primary care trusts when they raise particular issues, and their ability to look at social care institutions. We wanted to avoid confusion between the inspection roles of the statutory regulators and the powers of LINKs to go into trusts to view the services. That is why we have made a change, to enable them to do that. However, it is important to recognise that when LINKs go into, for example, day care centres under social services, notice needs to be given to people who go to such centres for, in a sense, respite care. We want to make sure that that work does not disturb either staff or patients. However, LINKs will be able to make reports after they have entered premises and to demand replies from PCTs and others.

Bob Blizzard: In my area we have a group of very dedicated people who were involved in community health councils, who then became involved in the various patient and public involvement organisations and who want to be involved in the LINKs. However, they are conscious that we are not reaching out to a wider electorate of people who want to get involved in such work. How can we spread the word and get new people involved in these organisations?

Rosie Winterton: That is the challenge. We know from consultation that people want to have a greater say. Through some of the draft guidance that we have issued we have looked at how to involve more people. We also have some early adopter sites, which are considering in particular how to widen the range of people who are involved to include voluntary sector and other patient groups.

Mental Health

Annette Brooke: How many children and young people diagnosed with mental ill health have been admitted to adult wards.

Rosie Winterton: The Department collects data on occupied bed days, not on the number of individuals that that represents. In 2006-07, there were 19,988 hospital occupied bed days on adult psychiatric wards of patients aged 16 or 17, and a further 201 hospital occupied bed days on adult psychiatric wards of patients aged under 16.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for that answer. What plans do the Government have to protect centres of excellence for the treatment of adolescents with severe mental health conditions, such as the one that is being closed at Cassel hospital, Richmond. I understand that it is being closed because PCTs across the country are not prepared to pay for out-of-area placements.

Rosie Winterton: In providing that more specialised care, we want PCTs to consider the requirements in perhaps a wider area than the PCT area, because sometimes quite small numbers of children require that type of intensive specialist care. However, I feel that often children are sent too far away from home. Some out-of-area provision is necessary, but we want to make sure that such provision is commissioned more effectively and can deal better with the situation that affects small numbers of children. We want to make sure that they can have treatment closer to home than is sometimes the case now.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Minister for the reassurances on that very issue that she gave during Committee stage of the Mental Health Bill. What discussions will she have with the new coalition on mental health services, which supports the modernisation agenda, so that we can make the positive changes that she wants?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend refers, I believe, to the fact that approximately 85 per cent. of those who work in mental health services have now withdrawn from the Mental Health Alliance and are realigning themselves to make sure that some of the steps that we want to take to modernise mental health legislation can go forward. I thank him for his contributions in Committee, where we had a lot of discussions about what we want to do to improve those services and, in particular, about age-appropriate accommodation.

NHS Data Disclosures

David Heathcoat-Amory: What safeguards are in place to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of personal data by the NHS.

Patricia Hewitt: The strongest safeguard is the professionalism of NHS staff themselves, but the modernisation of NHS IT also provides the opportunity to deploy state-of-the-art security safeguards, particularly for confidential patient information. In the rare cases where NHS staff do breach patient confidentiality, they are subject both to disciplinary measures and to the legal penalties provided under the Data Protection Act 1998; professional staff also risk losing their licence to practise.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Three weeks ago the Department of Health made an unauthorised disclosure of the personal details of junior doctors, which was a disgrace. More recently, the Public Accounts Committee severely criticised the main health IT system, which is already running two years late. Apart from the usual bland assurances that we get from the Secretary of State, what guarantees can she give us that patients' personal medical records will not be disclosed, and as her Department is clearly incapable of running or commissioning anything properly, will she take independent advice on the matter?

Patricia Hewitt: The electronic patient records and other aspects of connecting for health have nothing whatever to do with MTAS; they have all been organised with the highest level of security safeguards, and that has been independently verified. The right hon. Gentleman is simply scaremongering, and instead of doing so— [Interruption.] The Conservative party already opposes identity cards. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he will now oppose electronic patient records?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Secretary of State answer.

Nappies

Jessica Morden: What support or guidance her Department gives to maternity units to give new mothers access to reusable or biodegradable nappies.

Ivan Lewis: It is for individual national health service hospitals and trusts in England to determine the practicalities of promoting the use of reusable and disposable nappies in their maternity units. For the rest of the United Kingdom, that would be a matter for the devolved Administrations.

Jessica Morden: I thank the Under-Secretary for his response. Having just become a new mum, I am keenly aware of the special access that manufacturers of disposable nappies have to new mums when they are in hospital. Given nappies' contribution to landfill, will he look at ways to level the playing field, and will he at least encourage samples of biodegradable and reusable nappies to be made available in hospitals? Once people start using a product, they are more likely to continue using it.

Ivan Lewis: We have to be careful not to encourage too much of a nappy state. We give first-time mothers a pregnancy book and a birth to five book, both of which discuss in some detail the case for and against each kind of nappy. It has to be said that a report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that, in the end, in terms of overall environmental consequences, there was very little difference between disposable and reusable nappies. I understand that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is happy to host a meeting with the Nappy Alliance to discuss the matter further.

Home Information Packs

Ruth Kelly: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government's proposals for the implementation of home information packs. It was the Government's intention to implement home information packs, including energy performance certificates, on 1 June. In debate last week, reference was made to the judicial review requested by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That judicial review focused on energy performance certificates, not home information packs. On Wednesday, the judge issued an interim order, which was received by my Department on Thursday. That order would have effectively prevented the introduction of energy performance certificates on 1 June, while the case was being considered.
	The Government believe that introducing home information packs without energy performance certificates would be neither practical nor acceptable. It is important to introduce energy performance certificates and home information packs at the same time, because cutting carbon emissions should go hand in hand with market transformation. We have been in detailed discussion with the RICS to prevent lengthy legal delays. Both the Government and the RICS are committed to the swift and smooth introduction of home information packs and energy performance certificates. I am pleased that we have reached a pragmatic way forward— [Interruption]—that gives certainty and allows us to get on with implementation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Secretary of State speak. Hon. Members often say that they wish Ministers would come before the House. The Secretary of State is here before the House; hon. Members should listen to her.

Ruth Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	As a result, we propose to withdraw the home information pack regulations to clear the way for successful implementation of revised arrangements.
	Although the issue of the judicial review is now resolved, long-running uncertainty has already had an impact on the numbers of energy assessors. For implementation on 1 June, we would need at least 2,000 assessors to be accredited, with over 2,500 by the end of the month. Today I am updating the House with the latest figures. There are over 2,500 people currently in training. A further 3,200 have already passed their home inspector or domestic energy assessor exams. Of those, 1,500 have been accredited or have applied for accreditation, but only 520 have been fully accredited. These figures show that the number of assessors is unlikely to meet our needs for 1 June implementation. Equally, they show that in the long term there will clearly be enough assessors to meet demand.
	The Government remain convinced of the importance of home information packs and energy performance certificates. Home information packs will cut costs and delays in buying homes. Energy performance certificates will help to reduce energy bills and cut carbon emissions from our homes, which, as they make up 27 per cent. of our national carbon emissions, could make a big difference in our effort to tackle climate change. The measures in the energy performance certificates will cut carbon emissions by nearly 1 million tonnes every year.
	I have always said that the right test of the legislation should be how it brings benefits for consumers and how it protects the environment. Today, therefore, I am setting out a practical way forward. I propose to change the start date for home information packs to 1 August, and intend to phase their introduction. From 1 August home information packs, including energy performance certificates, will be required for the sale of four-bedroom properties and larger—the properties where there is the greatest potential to make energy efficiency savings. This will ensure work for energy assessors who have already been trained and accredited. We will extend to smaller properties as rapidly as possible, as sufficient energy assessors become ready to work. As we see the number of accredited assessors rise, so more properties will be included in the system.
	We are also introducing a number of transitional measures. First, until the end of the year, we propose to allow people to market their properties as soon as they have commissioned a pack, rather than make them wait until they have received it, in order to avoid unnecessary delays when the systems come in. Secondly, to allow energy performance certificates to be implemented at the earliest opportunity, we will make amendments to allow energy performance certificates to be up to 12 months old when the property is put up for sale, extending the current three-month age limit.
	Thirdly, we are inviting councils and registered social landlords to work with us to introduce energy performance certificates on a voluntary basis in social housing—for example, at the time of stock transfers. This will also provide work for energy assessors at an early opportunity. I will shortly introduce revised regulations to implement the changes that I have outlined.
	Towards the end of the year we will assess the implementation of home information packs and consider what further steps might be needed to maximise the reduction in carbon emissions and drive forward the reform of home buying and selling. This assessment will be informed by the operation of the market from 1 August, by the results of the area trials, and by a further consultation on the next steps in implementing home information packs and energy performance certificates, which we will begin in the summer.
	The approach that I have set out gives clarity to everyone about the next steps. It delivers home information packs and energy performance certificates, removes uncertainty for energy assessors and others, and ensures a smooth transition for the people buying and selling their property. Most importantly, it provides an opportunity to make real progress towards cutting carbon emissions from our homes.

Michael Gove: I thank the Secretary of State for her grace and courage in coming to the House to make the statement today. It cannot have been easy announcing a retreat on a policy that she had no part in implementing originally. It is big of her to take the flak.
	I also thank the Secretary of State for allowing me sight of her announcement, which I received just 25 minutes ago—clearly this is a day for doing everything at the last minute.
	May I ask why, after being warned more than a year ago that they were comprehensively mishandling this issue, Ministers have seen fit to retreat only now with eight days to go before home information packs were due to be implemented? Why did Ministers not take the opportunity that we offered last week to think again? Was it stubborn vanity or sheer incompetence? The Secretary of State may argue that this humiliating climbdown was precipitated by the judgment issued in the High Court today, but that prompts the question that goes to the heart of the matter: why did Ministers find themselves in court in the first place? Why did they press ahead with a scheme that everyone who knows anything about the housing market told them was flawed at the heart?
	Those warnings, unlike this climbdown, did not come at the eleventh hour. In this House at this Dispatch Box a year ago, we told the Government that their scheme was flawed. The Government told us that we were scaremongering, but 11 months ago they were compelled to execute the first in a truly embarrassing series of U-turns by dropping the mandatory home condition report, which was the keystone of the original home information pack, just hours after the Minister for Housing and Planning had defended it in this House. However, they were still determined to press ahead after that U-turn. Why did they not take the opportunity to work with us and others to put the stability of the housing market first? Why did Ministers decide to ignore the growing chorus of concern, shut out expert advice and carry on regardless?
	On 21 February, all the key stakeholders who were originally invited to help the Government set up the scheme issued a warning letter to the Minister for Housing and Planning asking for an emergency meeting to address fundamental concerns with the scheme. They were not granted the meeting for which they asked: why? In desperation, the same group wrote to the Secretary of State on 2 March asking for a collective emergency meeting. Again, they were snubbed and no collective meeting was granted: why? What explains that refusal to listen to the experts, who were once charged with setting up the policy and whose involvement would be key to implementing it? Was it because this Government could not bear to be told that they were in the wrong, or did they not realise what a mess they were presiding over? Was it deadly arrogance or fatal ignorance? After today's announcement, we know that this lady is for turning.
	There are still many unanswered questions. The Government were warned that there were not enough qualified, accredited and certificated home inspectors in place. Over a year ago, I warned that getting those people in place was crucial. Only last week, the Minister for Housing and Planning told us that we had enough people to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme—she told us that everything would be all right on the night. Why did she offer that cavalier assurance, when the Secretary of State has told us that there will not be enough people in place after all? We know that relations between these Ministers are bad, but did the Secretary of State find out only in the past few days how few qualified people are in place? When did she know the real numbers? And why was not the House informed about the truth last week?
	How can Ministers ever again ask to be taken seriously on the environment, when they have comprehensively mismanaged a measure that they argued throughout was vital to fighting climate change? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that today's judgment in the High Court underlines what we have argued all along and what best practice in the European Union shows—you do not need home information packs for energy performance certificates? Will she agree to meet me, my colleagues, the Liberal Democrats and everyone with an interest in getting the housing market right to ensure that there is at last some expertise in this process?
	Is this not a desperate, last-minute retreat designed to ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning is airlifted out of this Department by her friends in the Treasury in a future reshuffle, so she does not have to cope with the chaos that she has created? And is it not truly tragic that confidence in the industry, the stability of the housing market and the battle against climate change have all been damaged by this Government's arrogance and incompetence?

Ruth Kelly: I am absolutely delighted to see the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) enjoying himself and in his place. Indeed, only this morning the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) asked the Conservative party whether it wants to be a serious force for governmental change, or whether it wants to be a right-wing debating society. Today, we have had our answer, and there he is, the honorary president.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to meet him. I would look forward to, and enjoy, meeting him on any occasion to discuss our policy on energy performance certificates or HIPs.
	Before I deal with the specific points raised by the thrusting, young, ambitious hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I cannot help but observe that he has clearly thrust aside the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is sitting beside him. Is that because he enjoys debating so much, or is it because the hon. Lady has been barred from addressing the House today because she dared to speak the truth about her party's position on energy performance certificates on television only last week? She said that
	"the new feature is having energy performance assessors come round and actually look at how your house is put together...so it's a very intrusive measure."
	I fail to see how she can claim to support energy rating of homes if she opposes the idea of people going round to other people's houses to check what their energy ratings are. What does she have in mind—drive-by energy assessors? That does not sound very green to me.
	Let me deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He said that we have refused to meet stakeholder groups such as estate agents or the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I can tell him, and the House, that those groups have had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Indeed, I offered to meet the RICS before the introduction of the regulations, but somehow it could not find the time.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when I knew about the interim order and the judicial review. Our Department was informed on Thursday, and I was informed later than that, at the weekend. In the past half an hour, we have reached a resolution with the RICS and set out a practical way forward that recognises that 5,000 energy assessors are in training or have already passed their exams. It is clear that lots of people want to be energy assessors, but—perhaps unsurprisingly given the campaign of misinformation from the hon. Gentleman and the threat of judicial review—several of them have adopted a wait-and-see approach instead of paying their final £300 to become accredited. That means that we have certain practical considerations to address. We need to provide certainty for energy assessors. That is why we are delaying the implementation of the proposals but also bringing forward some of our social housing stock, on which EPC assessments can be performed.
	Our approach must be based on the two tests that I set out earlier: first, how do we maximise consumer benefit; and, secondly, how do we meet our climate change goals? The package that I have put before the House is a sensible way forward that does both. I should have thought that Members on both sides of the House would agree with WWF and Friends of the Earth that EPCs are
	"one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation to affect households in recent years."
	I do not think that anyone could say that the package of measures before us today is anything other than a sensible and pragmatic response to the current situation. That is why I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, look forward to meeting him, and hope that we can now establish a consensus in favour of the proposals.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I, for one, welcomed HIPs and energy performance certificates, understanding the valuable role that they would play in our efforts to curb climate change. I recognise what my right hon. Friend has done to get a viable solution for this country. She confirmed that the RICS' objections centred on EPCs. We have established that sufficient people are in training to undertake EPC assessments when they are in place. Does she agree that the Opposition's continuous opposition to this measure is very destructive, jeopardises people's employment, and jeopardises the environment?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in such matters. She is absolutely right—we have now proposed a sensible way forward. I ask hon. Members of all parties to welcome the steps that we have taken to come together and ensure the smooth implementation of home information packs and especially energy performance certificates.

Andrew Stunell: Smooth implementation is fine but the Secretary of State might acknowledge that it is a bit of shambles at the moment. Last week, I referred to the scheme as a train crash. Today, the first aid workers are on the scene but many hon. Members do not have much confidence in the doctors and nurses who are ministering to the injured.
	Matters first went wrong last July and we were assured that everything would be fixed and ready for this June. It has all gone wrong again. Will the Secretary of State publish the risk assessment for her decision to move the scheme to 1 August? Is she satisfied that the risks inherent in it will be resolved and settled positively before we reach that August date?
	Will she confirm that 3,500 transactions will be completed by 1 August? Mr. McDonald from the Department told the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments that that number was needed before the pilot study could be validated. Is the Secretary of State's choice of 1 August as the new date in any way connected to the fact that it is well beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny?
	The statement refers to four-bedroom homes. Does the right hon. Lady have a legal definition of a four-bedroom home? How many offices, studies, boxrooms and loft conversions will suddenly crop up? What regulations will she propose? Will she confirm that, according to most people's estimates, the number of homes that she is considering will represent around 10 per cent. of the housing stock? How does the two-month delay and the reduction by 90 per cent. of the number of transactions fit with the capacity of 1,500—it may be 5,000—assessors who will be in the market looking for work at that time?
	The Secretary of State referred to stock transfer of local authority housing. I welcome the inclusion of social housing in the scheme. However, to do it at the point of stock transfer, when there may suddenly be 1,000 or 10,000 homes all at once, makes little sense. Will she take a second look at the way in which social housing should be integrated into the scheme?
	Is the Secretary of State persuaded that her Department's third attempt under her leadership to deliver the scheme will be any more successful than the other two, or does she take comfort from the thought that, if it is not, a different Minister will have to be held to account?

Ruth Kelly: We chose 1 August because it maximises certainty for energy assessors, delivers on our climate change goals at the earliest opportunity and maximises the benefit for consumers. That is also the reason for our choice of four-bedroom properties—I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on a definition, if he wishes; I am sure that a common-sense approach will be adopted. However, I understand that four-bedroom properties represent about 18 per cent. of the market. The assessment is cautious and based on the number of assessors who have already been trained.
	To provide assessors with sufficient work or give them greater opportunities for work in the interim period, we will work with social housing providers—both local authority and registered social landlords—to try to bring on stream, through stock transfers or perhaps other measures, enough work to continue to generate additional demand for energy assessors so that they can become available in due course to meet the demands that are placed on them in the home-buying and selling process. That is a sensible way forward, which guarantees that there is work for them to do.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for information to be published. I said that we will publish a consultation paper, to which a full regulatory impact assessment will be attached. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to comment on that. However, I hope that he agrees that that is a sensible and pragmatic way forward.

Phyllis Starkey: National Energy Services, based in my constituency, is one of the major trainers for energy assessors and I have seen the training and work that is done on site. It is quite clear that many assessors have not paid for the final accreditation precisely because of the misinformation and the opportunistic opposition of the Conservative party and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. What is necessary now so that people who have committed themselves to training as assessors have some certainty of employment is to ensure that there is no further delay beyond what I understand has had to be a pragmatic accommodation between the Secretary of State and the RICS. Has my right hon. Friend received an assurance from the RICS that it will stick to that agreement and not cause further insecurity by backtracking or derailing this measure, which is so important for home owners and for improving the energy efficiency of homes?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. As I said, in the last three quarters of an hour we reached a resolution of the judicial case with the RICS. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need some certainty in the market to encourage energy assessors to pay their final fees in order to become accredited. I think that everyone can take comfort from the fact that, within less than a week, more than 1,000 extra energy assessors have passed their exams. People are going through training, becoming qualified and passing their exams at a quite dramatic rate. The challenge now is to ensure that they have the time to become properly accredited and that there is then work for them to do. That is why we are taking this sensible and measured approach.

Patrick Cormack: In recognising this as the Government's second great triumph over the previous week, may I ask whether the Secretary of State will give the House an assurance that she will not seek to recruit assessors from the ranks of junior doctors?

Ruth Kelly: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's wit. He makes his point in his own way, but the fact is that we have to provide as much certainty as possible for energy assessors while ensuring that we meet our climate change goals and maximise benefits for consumers. I believe that I have set out a sensible way forward on that.

Mary Creagh: May I express the disappointment of, I am sure, the whole House that lawyers have interfered with the democratic will of the people? In areas such as Wakefield, where many houses were traditionally reliant on coal-fired fuel, estate agents have welcomed HIPs and have advertised their services in the  Wakefield Express. People will feel very cheated by this latest delay. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in areas such as mine, where people are heating water with very inefficient back boilers or heating their homes through often dodgy flues, energy performance certificates have the potential to reduce the number of accidents and the number of people dying of carbon monoxide poisoning or from scalds?

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend has championed the cause of safety in the home ever since she became a Member of this House. I give her credit for doing so. She is right that many estate agents up and down the country have been implementing systems to bring in HIPs and energy performance certificates at the beginning of June. No doubt they will be disappointed by today's news. The fact is that we have to minimise the risks and ensure that we sensibly introduce measures that provide some work for energy assessors, continue to build the market and inject a greater degree of confidence in the system.

Justine Greening: May I ask the Secretary of State about a three-bedroom house for which a planning application has already been made for a third bedroom— [Interruption.]

Stephen Pound: Four.

Justine Greening: Sorry, I mean a three-bedroom house where a planning application has been granted for a fourth bedroom. When a home information pack has been commissioned for a four-bedroom house, but it is not received by the time of exchange, will the purchasers be allowed to go ahead?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Lady clearly wants to become involved and help us with the definition of a four-bedroom property. Trading standards, which will enforce the regulations, will take a common-sense approach. I have outlined an approach whereby a potential seller who has commissioned an energy performance certificate and has it in place at the point of exchange will be able to proceed with the sale of the property.

Clive Betts: Last week, I was in favour of the principle of energy performance certificates and of the principle of changing the way we buy and sell houses in this country. I am still in favour of those principles. I recognise that my right hon. Friend has found it necessary to make some changes and postponements today, but I greatly welcome the idea of rolling out energy performance certificates for social housing, which could help some of the poorest families in our community. Does she agree that, however regrettable the resistance of the RICS to energy performance certificates on this occasion, it is nothing compared to the double standards of Conservative Members who want to vote blue and talk green only if no effective action follows?

Ruth Kelly: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. I am absolutely clear that energy performance certificates and home information packs have an important role to play, and everyone should take the opportunity today to back those principles. Faced with tough decisions on tackling climate change, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and his party duck the challenge at every opportunity. Today is yet another example of their failure to live up to their slogans.

Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State has told us that there are only 520 fully accredited inspectors, and that that number is inadequate to implement the regulations on 1 June. That was also true last week. Why were we not told that in last week's debate on this matter? Why were we told last week that, on the contrary, there were sufficient inspectors? That was not true. I would have thought that this was a resigning issue.

Ruth Kelly: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not right. The House was told the appropriate number of energy assessors—the number who had passed their qualifications and who intended to start work. Since those figures were given to the House, the number of energy assessors who have completed their training and passed their exams has risen by a further 1,000. We only need 2,000 in place at the beginning of the process. There is clearly sufficient demand, but there is also uncertainty about whether to pay the accreditation fees. The package that I have put before the House today is designed to give that extra certainty.

Andrew Miller: I understand why my right hon. Friend has had to make this statement today, but I have to say that I am deeply disappointed. In my constituency—where there is not 18 per cent. of four-bedroomed houses—270 people are working for a specialist company providing HIPs. As a result of the action of the RICS and the support of the Conservative party, there is a risk that they will be put out of work. When laying the necessary orders, will my right hon. Friend take into account the needs of the people working for those specialist companies so that they do not suffer unemployment as a result of the Tories' actions?

Ruth Kelly: I certainly will. I have been very concerned about the impact on individual energy assessors, who have parted with good money—their own money—to be trained and who intend to work to provide valuable energy certificates for my hon. Friend's constituents and others. That is why we intend to introduce the full scheme at the earliest opportunity and why we are bringing forward work in the social housing sector. That will not only help us to meet our climate change goals, but provide additional work for energy assessors.

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Lady has come here to make a statement about problems that she has now resolved. She has been asked a simple question about the definition of four-bedroom and three-bedroom houses. Let me remind her that only one group is lower in public opinion than we are: the estate agents who will now be responsible for this provision. She knows very well that people will be able, quite happily, to take one of their four bedrooms and turn it into a boxroom, creating a three-bedroom house. There is no way that she can define that in any legal sense. This is a thoroughgoing disaster. Why does she not drop it and start again?

Ruth Kelly: It is pretty clear to me that if a house owner has applied for planning permission for a fourth bedroom, it must be a three-bedroom house. It is pretty hard to carry out an energy performance assessment on an extension that has not yet been built. This just serves to prove that a common-sense approach will be adopted by the trading standards officers who will have to enforce our policy.

Tom Levitt: I hesitate to use words such as "capitalism" in this place, but is it not a prime example of the wasteful nature of market forces to insist on a situation in which the same survey is carried out time after time on the same property by different purchasers? This process is designed to end that practice, which the Conservatives and their lawyer friends are trying to keep going. It is essential that we get the process back on the road and ensure that the careers of people such as my constituents who have committed themselves to becoming inspectors are protected, preserved and enhanced. They will not be impressed by the hilarity on the Conservative Benches this afternoon.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. Home information packs are incredibly important to the transformation of the home buying and selling process, which has not changed for a great many years. It is right for us to provide information up front, in as successful a form as possible, for purchasers before they enter into protracted legal negotiations.

Mark Prisk: Last week, the Minister for Housing and Planning told the House that there were more than enough energy assessors and that she had every confidence that the scheme could go ahead on 1 June. More important, she told the House that the RICS judicial review was "completely groundless", as can be seen in column 643 of  Hansard. Why is the Secretary of State having to cover for the incompetence and arrogance of a Minister who is not doing her job sufficiently well?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend the Minister spelled out the position to the House. She outlined the numbers of those in training and those who had passed their exams. In fact, since then the number who have passed their exams has increased by 1,000.

Mark Prisk: In six days?

Ruth Kelly: In six days. The figures are changing rapidly as more and more energy assessors pass their exams, gain their qualifications and pay their dues to become fully accredited. However, they clearly need enough certainty in the system to part with the final £300, and we are not providing that certainty.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State must know that the vast majority of the public want to make their homes more energy efficient, but does she really believe that this bureaucratic and expensive measure is the best way of achieving that? Given all the problems and all the retreats, is it not time to get everyone around the table to think about what is in the best interests not just of energy efficiency and climate change, but of the public?

Ruth Kelly: No doubt my hon. Friend will contribute her views to the consultation that we are organising. The results of the area trials, which are continuing, and wider consultation with the public show a clear need to provide clarity and transparency in the home buying and selling process. The purpose of home information packs is to deliver more transparency and information at the beginning of the process of purchasing a house, rather than waiting until the end of the process to provide that vital information. I consider that to be a common-sense change.

John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State not understand that vendors do not want to incur what is effectively a tax on their transaction before they have gained any money from the sale that they are trying to carry out? Does she not understand that when in a hole one should stop digging, and that it is not a good idea to go against the wishes of the many people who would like to sell their houses or flats in the normal way without Government interference and an effective tax?

Ruth Kelly: I can only conclude from his comments that the right hon. Gentleman does not support energy performance certificates, which are the only new documents in the home information packs.

John Redwood: I would support voluntary certificates, but not mandatory ones.

John Redwood: I hear the right hon. Gentleman say, from a sedentary position, that he does not support mandatory energy performance certificates. Is that the view of his party's Front Bench? If it is, I suggest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Secretary of State to ask the questions.

Andrew MacKay: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? This delay is clearly hugely to his advantage, because it will give him the opportunity to knock home information packs on the head when he becomes Prime Minister and, hopefully—for him—not to lose quite so many votes at the next general election.

Ruth Kelly: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his absolute commitment to the policy completely clear.

Tony Baldry: I understand that the RICS has not agreed to much of what the Secretary of State has said and that the court decision has been stayed, not withdrawn.
	As the Secretary of State will know, for many weeks I have been asking a named-day question about the number of accredited domestic energy assessors. Week after week, the Minister for Housing and Planning has replied, "I will answer shortly." The Department chose to answer the question in that way for one of two reasons. Either it knew that it did not have sufficient accredited domestic energy assessors, which would be negligent, or it did not know how many it had, which would be incompetent. Which was it, negligence or incompetence?

Ruth Kelly: As a result of my comments today, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the figures are changing rapidly. I will put a full set of figures before the House today—I will place a copy in the Library—and I will also make sure that his parliamentary questions are fully answered.
	I have come to this House to be as open and transparent as possible. It is clear from the figures that I have presented today that a huge number of people want to become trained energy assessors. However, it is also clear that many of them feel worried about paying their accreditation fees because of the uncertainty that has been hanging over the process. The way ahead that I have set out today is designed to resolve that uncertainty.

Adam Afriyie: I listened to the statement with great interest and it seemed to me to be bizarre and surreal. Among those blamed were solicitors, the market and the Opposition. Do the Secretary of State and her Ministers accept any responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves? If they do not, I suspect from the tone of the debate that the House will soon be roofless.

Ruth Kelly: Our policy is the right one: there should be up-front information for the consumer and we should introduce energy performance certificates to try to meet our climate change goal. However, the uncertainty created by the campaign of misinformation led by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, combined with the threat of judicial review, has led in the final weeks to not enough energy assessors paying their dues. I have come to the House to put that right.

Remploy

John Hutton: I wish to make a statement on the modernisation proposals announced by Remploy earlier today. Remploy was established after the second world war to support injured servicemen and women to progress into mainstream employment. Today, Remploy factories employ about 5,000 disabled people across a range of sectors, from office furniture to electronics. Despite profound shifts in our economy over the past 60 years, there has been relatively little change in the nature of Remploy factories. However, the combination of new technology and the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation in Europe is creating new opportunities for disabled people in mainstream employment.
	In 2005, a National Audit Office report argued that
	"most of the businesses—particularly those in more traditional manufacturing and factory settings—are not currently sustainable in economic terms and are unlikely to become so in the future."
	The NAO also found that Remploy Interwork, which places people primarily in outside employment, appears to offer a more cost-effective service and accounts for three-quarters of all progressions to unsupported employment. The report stated that
	"there remains substantial advantage in expanding this area of provision further, both in terms of reduced costs and the number of individuals who can be helped."
	Following the publication of the NAO report, in March 2006 I commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers and Stephen Duckworth to conduct a strategic review of future business options for the company. The report set out a range of scenarios for the business, from no change to complete closure of the factory network. I explicitly ruled out both of those options. In responding to the report last July, I said that I was willing to invest more in Remploy, but on the basis of reform, to help more disabled people and to provide better value for the taxpayer.
	The average subsidy for a Remploy factory worker is about £20,000 per year, which is substantially more than the subsidy available under my Department's Workstep programme, and also far greater than the £5,300 average one-off cost of getting someone into a mainstream job through Remploy's work placement arm. Last year, Remploy placed 5,200 people into mainstream employment, thereby outstripping for the first time the number employed in its factory network. Last July, I set out a five-year funding envelope for the company, maintaining baseline funding of £111 million per year to give it stability, and asked its board to bring forward a restructuring plan to modernise the business to support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into work. I also made it clear that any such proposals must fully and fairly protect Remploy's disabled employees from compulsory redundancy.
	After extensive consultation with the representatives of the work force, Remploy has today produced its proposals. There are five core components. First, and most importantly, the company aims to quadruple mainstream job entries to 20,000 a year over the next five years, helping more disabled people gain sustainable employment. Secondly, it is planning significantly to decrease management overheads by £49 million over the next five years. Thirdly, it proposes the closure of 32 of the existing 83 factories, with a further 11 factories to transfer employees to neighbouring sites. Fourthly, the company has again confirmed that there will be no compulsory redundancies for disabled employees. And fifthly, a comprehensive support package will help employees through the transition. That latter step will ensure that all disabled employees continue to enjoy their current terms and conditions, including their membership of Remploy's final salary pension scheme, should they decide to take employment outside of Remploy. The company is now beginning a formal consultation with its trade unions and employees, as well as preparing a disability impact assessment as part of its disability equality duty obligations.
	I understand the concerns that the proposals will raise for some of Remploy's employees. It is important that employees, and the trade unions representing them, are now given the time and space to respond to the consultation. Support and guidance is being made available for all Remploy staff through the factory network today and throughout the consultation period. That will include the option of counselling and advice from an independent organisation. I recognise that many hon. Members in the House today will have Remploy factories in their constituencies. I want Members to be fully involved in the consultation process and I will make sure that that happens. I understand that the Remploy chairman has already briefed Members earlier today.
	I expect to receive the company's final proposals later this year. No decision on the future of the company will take place until then. Once final proposals have been submitted, I will consider whether we are able to offer the company additional funding to facilitate modernisation beyond the £555 million already pledged.
	Reform of Remploy is about extending opportunity to disabled people. It is about the fundamental principle that disabled people should have the opportunity to work in mainstream employment, but that a sheltered environment should also be provided where that is the best option. As six of the biggest organisations representing disabled people made clear last week in a letter to  The Guardian:
	"The minute you assume someone cannot work in the outside world you will certainly ensure they don't. Disabled people want to work in ordinary places doing ordinary jobs. It is a matter of human rights."
	Increasing employment opportunities for disabled people and ensuring Remploy's duty of care to its staff are the two fundamental tests against which Ministers will ultimately assess Remploy's proposals.

Philip Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for an important statement on the closure of 43 factories employing some of the most vulnerable workers in the country. As he reminded us, Remploy was set up at the end of the second world war, primarily to provide meaningful and productive work for people who suffered tragic disabilities as a result of the war. It provided great service during the post-war period and continues to do so today.
	Remploy also has a proud history of adjusting to and moving with the times. Initially set up as a factory network, Remploy has been able to adjust to the decline in UK manufacturing and expand into the service sector, setting up businesses where there was demand at the time. As the nature of the disabilities people face has changed, and the expectations of disabled people and the society around them have also changed—with more focus on creating opportunities for disabled people and a wider acceptance of disability and the contribution that disabled people can make across society—Remploy has once again moved with the times, expanding its operations to help individuals find work in businesses outside its own factories and workshops. As the Secretary of State said, it is now placing as many people each year in work outside the organisation as it employs itself.
	In the face of the rising costs of maintaining the Remploy network and the increasing challenges of the global economy, coupled with the changing needs of disabled people, the time is now right for another evolution of Remploy. My party supports the principle of reform that the proposals that the Secretary of State spoke about embrace, and we support the goal of greater levels of inclusion of disabled people in mainstream employment. We shall take a close interest in the consultation process that now follows but, as the Secretary of State would expect, we have a number of specific concerns. They relate not to the objective but to the transitional process and to the impact on individuals, many of whom will have worked for Remploy all their adult lives.
	The Secretary of State's statement did not say so explicitly, but the one made earlier by Remploy makes it clear that the proposal will entail 2,270 disabled employees being transferred out of the company's employment. How many of them are over 50, and thus within 15 years of normal retirement age? How many are people whose primary disability is a mental health problem or a learning disability, and what special provision is envisaged for the more challenging retraining requirements that that group is likely to have? What will be the total retraining and job placement budget for dealing with those 2,270 people? Does he have any plans to make special provision for proposed closures in areas with significantly above average unemployment, such as Leicester, where it might be expected that the challenge of retraining Remploy employees and placing them in mainstream employment will be greater?
	We recognise the need for Remploy to shift its focus as the world about it changes. Work in a sheltered factory is no longer a financially viable option, nor is it the most socially desirable outcome for many disabled people entering the work force. However, moving on, retraining and facing a new and unfamiliar environment is a challenging prospect for anyone, and it will be especially so for some of the employees of Remploy. We fervently hope that the process will be successful, but what is the Secretary of State's plan B if it proves impossible to place some existing Remploy employees in mainstream employment? Does he have one? Has Remploy had discussions with the voluntary and social enterprise sectors to examine the possibility of alternative work placements for the—hopefully—very small number who cannot be placed successfully in mainstream employment?
	Work works, as the Secretary of State frequently reminds us, and over the years the 2,270 Remploy workers have benefited from the dignity of being engaged in productive employment. The worst possible outcome of the changes that we are discussing today would be for some of them to be left high and dry without work. I accept that they will still have their salaries and other support mechanisms, but it would be very unsatisfactory if they were left without work and the self-respect that it brings.
	Finally, is today's announcement the full agenda, or is it the first step in a longer-term programme? How secure are the jobs in the remaining 40 Remploy factories? Does the Secretary of State envisage that they will continue indefinitely as they are now, or is the outplacement of those employees also the ultimate objective?

John Hutton: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's support in principle for what Remploy is trying to do. That will be very welcome to the company.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. I shall try to answer most of them now, and I will correspond with him about the rest. I think that he asked me about the number of employees over 60—

Philip Hammond: Over 50.

John Hutton: In that case, I must have misheard the hon. Gentleman. However, I have the figures for the number of Remploy employees over 60, and can tell him that there are 650 in that category. I will get the figure for the numbers aged over 50.
	It is true that many of those who will be caught up in the changes will be learning disabled. I think that the majority of disabled people now supported by Remploy are in that category. I have no doubt that the company's experience in the field and willingness and ability to work with others mean that it will do all it can to help those people to find alternative work.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about factories in areas of high unemployment such as Leicester. The Remploy board has made it clear today that its final proposals—and I remind the House that there are no final proposals before Ministers yet—will have to take local labour market conditions fully into account. That was one of the factors the company took into account when drawing up the proposed sites that may be affected by the closure programme, but it will certainly reflect on the matter.
	I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of work. It is important that Members appreciate that no disabled person will lose the prospect of employment through these plans. As he said, about 2,300 disabled people will be affected by the proposals and the company has guaranteed that every person who wants to continue employment will be found alternative work, whether within the Remploy family, in sheltered employment environments or in mainstream employment. Again, I make it clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies.
	The hon. Gentleman, like me, referred to the support package on offer from the company. The support package is unprecedented; it is not TUPE—and, indeed, goes significantly beyond TUPE, especially in relation to continued membership of the final salary pension scheme, which will be important if the changes are to be made in an appropriate and sensitive way, as they must be.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the remaining factories in the Remploy network. As yet, there are no final proposals before Ministers, but the view of the company and the board is that the plans, subject to the outcome of the consultation, offer the company the best prospect of securing sustainable, long-term employment for the Remploy factory network. It is true, as I am afraid I have to say clearly today, that there can be no 100 per cent. guarantee for the indefinite future—that is no longer the world in which we live—but I strongly believe that, subject to the outcome of consultation on the final proposals, the generally accepted view is that the right way forward will consist of those types of change. That is the best way to offer the prospect of secure long-term employment for the remaining employees of Remploy.

Helen Goodman: My constituents in the Remploy factory at Spennymoor will be disappointed by the Secretary of State's announcement. He put great emphasis on the National Audit Office report, but is he aware of the comments of the Public Accounts Committee, which usually toughens up NAO reports? The PAC noted:
	"A highly supportive environment is the only appropriate option for some people and Remploy has provided unique opportunities for thousands over many years. The current review of Remploy should safeguard this achievement."
	The closure of factories in Hartlepool, Stockton and Spennymoor will remove those possibilities in a significant area of the north-east.

John Hutton: I fully understand that my hon. Friend's constituents will be disappointed by the announcement today. What we and the company are trying to do is to strike the right balance between making sure that the business has a sustainable, long-term future and providing a range of choices to disabled people so that they can find secure, meaningful employment. I believe strongly that part of the range of options that should be available to disabled people will include sheltered employment. We are not removing that option. Remploy has an established network of sheltered employment environments, which will continue to operate, and the company will continue to work with a range of local partners, including local authorities, to find alternative sheltered employment where that is appropriate. I repeat that Remploy staff who choose to move to those new working environments will continue to draw down their existing Remploy terms and conditions package, including membership of the final salary pension scheme. We are trying hard to be fair in the circumstances. We are not saying that there is no role for sheltered employment; we are saying that we have to find a different balance between mainstream and sheltered employment.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance notice of it.
	In principle, promoting mainstream employment must be the right approach to deliver independent living, and Remploy is to be congratulated on the success of its programmes to get people into mainstream employment. Expanding such schemes is both necessary and appropriate and I particularly welcome the consultation that will take place.
	Nevertheless, today's statement will have a deeply unsettling effect on the Remploy work force, some of whom I met in Halifax yesterday. Can the Minister confirm that half of all Remploy factories will be affected in some way by the initial proposals announced today? Can he explain why there was such a long period of uncertainty before the announcement was made, which added to the stress on many of the employees waiting for the announcement?
	The Government owe a duty of care to the individuals involved, and their interests must be at the forefront of our minds today. Over what period does the Secretary of State expect the closure programme to be phased in? How long will the affected individuals have to find alternative employment? Perhaps he could also say a little more about the assistance that will be offered to those people. Is he satisfied that the programme announced today and the plans for the workers from now on are consistent with Remploy's disability equality duty?
	Today's announcement cannot be isolated from the Government's wider policies for helping disabled people into work. If Remploy is to redirect its resources, the Government need to do the same. Is the Secretary of State willing to provide additional support for Remploy, if necessary, to meet its target of getting 20,000 additional disabled people into work every year through its mainstream employment programmes? In the same vein, has the Minister been able to find the additional resources needed to roll out the pathways to work programme appropriately, and has he been able to persuade the Treasury to accept the new funding mechanism, proposed by David Freud, which would allow additional resources to be invested in the area?
	What steps are the Government taking to increase employer engagement in order to help disabled people into work, and what steps are they taking to tackle prejudice and promote the benefits of employing disabled people and those with mental health conditions? The Government have a responsibility to expand dramatically the efforts to help all disabled people into work. They need to do so to ensure that all disabled people, including Remploy employees, have the fair opportunities to work that they deserve and that they have every right to expect.

John Hutton: Again, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's general support. It is true that half the factory network will be affected by the proposals. He asked why it took so long for the proposals to come through, following the publication of the reports last summer. The company has been working on the schemes, and of course a new chairman was appointed at the beginning of the year. It was quite right and proper for Ian Russell to take time to cast his eyes over the plans to make sure that they are appropriate and take the company in the right direction.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the time scale for the programme. I remind him, and the House, that there are no final proposals yet. We will not know the time scale until we see the final proposals from the company and Ministers have made a decision. Clearly, the consultation period will last for the appropriate time—90 days. The company will then need to reflect on that and bring forward its final proposals, which will be done before the end of the year.
	I accept that Remploy is bound by the disability equality duty. That is clearly a statutory obligation on the company and it will discharge that—it has no alternative. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Remploy has a clear and specific duty of care towards its employees and that it must discharge that duty. I will make sure—as I am sure will hon. Members—that that duty of care is properly discharged.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be additional support on top of the £555 million that we have committed to Remploy. I have made it clear that I am prepared to consider putting additional resources in on top of the more than £500 million currently available to Remploy, if that is necessary to support the transition programme.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Freud report. A response to that will be made later this year. Finally, in response to his point about pathways, my view is that pathways is being properly funded and that the Government are making significant additional resources available to help people who have a disability to find employment. That is right and proper.

Ann Clwyd: Many of us will want to suspend judgment until we have had an opportunity to look at the proposals in more detail. I would just say to my right hon. Friend that when I spoke to workers at the plant this afternoon they said that they were devastated and gutted by the news that the factory in Aberdare was to close. Only last week—this underlines the sensitivity with which these matters are handled—they were given a report that said that all their targets had been met. As a result, they had expectations that their factory was going to remain open. It is a great disappointment to them that it is not. They also raised the question of outsourcing. If Remploy claims that some factories are unprofitable, why does it outsource some of its work to India and China? I know that my right hon. Friend has dealt with this matter by fully consulting Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, when such a decision is made, it is a considerable body blow to the areas concerned.

John Hutton: I fully accept the points that my right hon. Friend powerfully makes. If a factory is in danger of closing, clearly we can all understand the concern that employees will feel, especially in an organisation such as Remploy. However, we simply cannot ignore the fact that the world is changing. We expect Remploy to discharge a very simple and clear responsibility as the transition is managed. As I have said, it is my duty first and foremost to ensure that Remploy handles this in the appropriate way—and I have no doubt at all that it will do so. We must think ahead and consider how we can help more disabled people to get into mainstream employment than at present. The prospect of quadrupling the number of disabled people who get jobs in mainstream employment is a prize well worth reaching for. I repeat that we, and the company, will behave properly and fairly when dealing with the challenge. If the work force at Aberdare feel that they have been misled by the company in any way, I very much regret that.

Annette Brooke: Can I be assured that the board will consider wider strategic solutions to help it to achieve all its aims? For example, in Poole, Dorset, there is a real opportunity to manage the transition of the factory while setting up a centre of excellence for the training of people with disabilities, which would obviously serve the whole of Dorset, bearing in mind the distance from the Poole site to any other Remploy factory in this country.

John Hutton: Yes, I think that the consultation will be full and open. Members can put forward views and I am sure that the work force at Poole will put forward views about the future of their place of work. The company made it clear today that every serious proposal will be studied and examined carefully.

Roger Berry: I understand the cause of the concerns that have been expressed, but I welcome the principles behind my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that Remploy's objectives must be to offer the widest choice of employment opportunities for disabled people, to ensure that it can secure the maximum number of jobs for disabled people, and that the largest possible number of disabled people should be employed in mainstream employment, when that is what they wish? Will he assure me that during the consultation process, everything will be done to ensure that the views of disabled people and their organisations are clearly sought and acted on?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks.

Stewart Hosie: A number of my constituents were deeply anxious about the threats to the factory in Dundee, which I understand has been saved. That is welcome. The factory lies in the Dundee, West constituency, so I will leave the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) to say more about it.
	In general terms, I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his statement, especially regarding the fact that there will be no compulsory redundancies for employees with disabilities, and that they will keep their final salary pension scheme. What guarantees can he offer to the non-disabled employees, especially with regard to their final salary pension scheme? Will he guarantee that if the factories that might close are sold, any receipts will go back into the business, or will be used to help people with disabilities into mainstream or sheltered work, rather than being grabbed by his Department or the Treasury?

John Hutton: We have no plans to grab any money in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. This exercise is not designed to reduce spending; quite the opposite. As I said earlier, I am prepared to invest more in the business to give disabled people the prospects and choices to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) referred.
	I welcome the general support of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) for the package that has been made available to disabled employees. Of course the accrued entitlements of Remploy's able-bodied employees under the final salary pension scheme will be fully observed by the company. However, the same offer could not be made to able-bodied employees as has been made by the company to its disabled employees. The company has made the choice—the right one, I think—that the proper and effective way to discharge its responsibilities and duty of care is the one that it has outlined today. That is the right way forward.

Angela Eagle: I too welcome in principle the move, which has to be right, of those with disabilities into mainstream employment—but the Central Cutting unit at Birkenhead, which is to be merged, where I have constituents working, is devastated by the news today. Can my right hon. Friend confirm on the record once more what we were told in a briefing earlier by the chairman of the company: that all the existing work force will be guaranteed their terms and conditions, and access to the pension fund, and that level of support in any employment that they undertake in the future, for the whole of their employment life? "For life" was what the chair said to us when we met him earlier today. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is indeed the case?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to emphasise two things. She referred to the Remploy factory in her constituency merging. That is the proposal; a final set of decisions has not yet been made by the company's board, and that will not happen until later this year. There is therefore the opportunity for her constituents and herself to be involved in helping to shape the final proposals that the board bring forward to Ministers. I am very happy to make it absolutely clear again that what the chairman of Remploy, Ian Russell, said today is the company's position—that there is an absolute guarantee along the lines that he indicated to my hon. Friend earlier in the day, and that that undertaking will be honoured.

Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State has used the words "sensitive" and "sensitivity" several times, and the company has been careful to try to get that message across. Will he continue that theme, bearing in mind that there are quite a number of these closures in the old pit areas, where unemployment is still a problem? There is one in my constituency, there is also one five miles away in Mansfield, and there was a closure a few years ago nearby. So will the Secretary of State look sensitively at that, as the operation has not been completed? And will he not keep referring to that £20,000 cost for each Remploy employee, because there are a lot of people in Britain that cost £20,000 to employ? In fact, there are some down in the sheltered accommodation at Buckingham palace who would all be put out to grass.

John Hutton: In relation to my hon. Friend's most important point, I reassure him that the company has already looked at those issues very carefully, and it will have to take them into account in making its final proposals. There is one overwhelming obligation now; that is clear from what the chairman of Remploy said today. The company must honour the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies. If that cannot be done for the list of factories currently scheduled for closure, the company will have to come forward with alternative proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not get drawn on the last point that he made.

Chris Mullin: I think that we will all agree that what my right hon. Friend proposes is sensible in theory, but we will all take a close interest in how it works in practice. I was glad to hear him say repeatedly that he would take account of local economic conditions—although when we hear that factories in, for example, Aberdare are to close, we do wonder how far they have been taken into account.
	Is not the danger that when we help people into mainstream employment, they will remain in it for as long as the subsidy to the employer continues, and as soon as that subsidy ceases they will not be in it any more? Does my right hon. Friend have any long-term research on how long people who have already been helped into jobs have remained in them?

John Hutton: I shall certainly make available all the research information that the Department currently has. The guarantee from the company is to support employment for the rest of a person's working life. It is inevitable, I suspect, that there will be occasions when a period of mainstream employment may come to an end, but the company's job and obligation there is to help the person find alternative work, and throughout that time that person will be employed by Remploy, on Remploy terms and conditions. I genuinely think that that is a very extensive offer of help and support.
	I agree with my hon. Friend in one very important respect: I think we should all reserve our judgment until the final proposals have come through. I am willing and available, as is the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who is the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, to meet any hon. Member to discuss their concerns and how we can best take forward this sensitive matter, which is important to all of us.

Linda Riordan: I was at the Halifax factory yesterday morning, and I am disappointed and angry at the news today, especially for the dedicated and hard-working staff there. Will the Secretary of State outline to the House why the Halifax factory has merited the proposed closure? What will be done to find suitable alternative employment for the staff, particularly considering the area we are in, and the proposed closure of the two Remploy factories nearest to Halifax—those in Barnsley and Bradford?

John Hutton: Again, I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I want to make something clear to her. She has, I think, assumed—wrongly—that the Halifax factory is going to close, but whether that is so will be clear only when the final proposals have come through. If she and her constituents believe that there are strong arguments against the closure of the Halifax factory, I know that the board of Remploy will fully consider them.

Clive Efford: May I stress to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the consultation must be genuine? I cannot imagine how the workers at my local factory must be feeling, having heard the recommendation that their workplace should close. My concern is that the recommendations are being made before Remploy has had the opportunity to prove that it can find places in mainstream workplaces for current Remploy employees. I think that that will be an extremely difficult task.
	May I suggest that there is a way forward that has not been put forward by Remploy or been considered in enough detail? It is that Remploy factories could provide a training base—a stepping stone—for people with disabilities who are trying to go back into mainstream work. Although it is important that people have dignity in the workplace and should be supported in mainstream employment, there is undoubtedly an element of the Remploy work force that cannot be employed in any other setting. Getting rid of these unique workplaces, where people can have dignity and be safely employed, will be a retrograde step. We will not be able to recreate them. We need to consider innovative ways to use Remploy factories in a new form, to meet all the needs of the work force for whom we are trying to provide a service.

John Hutton: My hon. Friend's last point has not been discounted by the company. I think it remains very much one of the options. I am sure that he and others will put that case to the Remploy board in the next three months or so, and I am prepared to act as interlocutor on his behalf if he feels that that would be helpful.
	On my hon. Friend's first question—about whether we should be confident of our ability to find alternative employment—it is worth reminding ourselves that Remploy currently has 1,500 vacancies on its books to help disabled people to get employment in mainstream employment situations. We are therefore entitled to be reasonably confident that we will be able to provide alternative employment. However, I accept absolutely—it is baked into the Remploy proposals—the need for sheltered employment in future. No one is proposing that disabled people should have no choice. The express purpose of the reforms is to give disabled people more choice.

Doug Henderson: My right hon. Friend will know that the trade unions have been calling for diversification and change in Remploy, because they could see what was coming. It seems to me that they have shown a lot more perspicacity than, historically, the management of Remploy have shown. If this is solely in the hands of Remploy, I have no great confidence that a plan will be brought forward in the consultation that will lead to security of employment in future. I think that a fund for change and modernisation is available. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to use that fund during the consultation period to explore the possibilities of establishing new employers with new products and new marketing schemes that could provide better long-term stable employment for those people, still secured under the terms and conditions that are broadly available at Remploy?

John Hutton: I did indicate in my statement that we were prepared to put additional resources into the business if that would help to sustain the factory network, or in fact the company, in future. As for my hon. Friend's point about the board, there is a new chairman who has handled himself exceptionally well in the last few months, and who has begun to build good relationships with the work force and the trade unions. Notwithstanding the disappointment that many will feel, now that there is a plan, it is important that we take advantage of it to help to shape and mould the company, so that it can help to meet the priorities that he and I share. Those priorities are the need to provide choice, opportunities, and the dignity of proper, effective, meaningful employment for more disabled people. We will not be able to do that without reform. I do not believe that we can do all the things that he and I want to do if we simply carry on as we are. That would let down many disabled people in the long term, and it would not give disabled people and their families some of the things that he and I want for them.

Denis Murphy: May I first express my serious concern about the proposed closure of the Ashington factory in my constituency, which is at the heart of one of the areas of greatest unemployment in Northumberland? Indeed, the Remploy factory is the only factory in Northumberland. The work force were informed of the closure; they were told that the factory would close by the end of the year, and that is contrary to the spirit in which my right hon. Friend made his statement. Will he comment on that, and on the statement made today by Ian Russell, the chairman of Remploy, who said that no factory would close until suitable alternative employment was found for all those affected?

John Hutton: I cannot explain how it came about that my hon. Friend's constituents were told what they were told. Clearly, it is flatly contradicted by what the chairman of Remploy said. I simply urge my hon. Friend's constituents to listen to the chairman of the board, and not to what they have been told by others.

Andrew Gwynne: Seventy-seven people are employed at the Remploy factory in Stockport, which is based in Heaton Chapel in my constituency, and 74 of them are disabled. They will be offered opportunities for employment at the Oldham Remploy factory, but will my right hon. Friend explain how they will be offered support in accessing those job opportunities, as that is obviously crucial to them?

John Hutton: That will ultimately be a matter for the company to decide, assuming that the proposals are implemented as they are currently formulated. If that were to happen, clearly it would be incumbent on the company to find a way of making sure that my hon. Friend's constituents were able to work at Oldham. If that means providing help with transport and other costs involved in the move, the company will do that.

James McGovern: Like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), I am delighted to hear that the Dundee Remploy factory will remain open. However, I have some concerns about Dundee, and other places. Will the Secretary of State confirm that factories for which closure is not proposed will remain unaffected by the plan? He says that the terms of transfer will go beyond the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981; will he confirm that, at the very least, TUPE will apply, so that if, five years down the line, the Remploy factories that remain open offer a beneficial 50 per cent. wage increase, it will apply to all former Remploy employees, regardless of how long ago they left and where they are employed at the time?

John Hutton: Yes, I can confirm that the offer from the company is to maintain people's existing Remploy terms and conditions, and it is under those terms and conditions, whatever they are, that people will be employed in future. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks; I am glad that a way forward has been found, and that the company does not propose to close Remploy in his constituency. Clearly, some of the factories that are to stay open will be affected by the closures, because employees will be transferred to them, but I can only repeat what I said earlier: we are talking about the company's initial set of proposals, and we have to find a way to secure the long-term future of Remploy as a business. By that I mean its future as a provider of sheltered employment and as a provider of mainstream employment opportunities for disabled people. That is very much what the board wants, and what my hon. Friends and I want.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require planning approval for the change of use of housing to multiple occupation; and for connected purposes.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar with the housing landscape in many of our towns and cities, where parts of those towns have become areas where the house in multiple occupation is the predominant form of housing. In many instances those houses are not what one might call traditional HMOs—an original large house subdivided into flats—but are a single house remaining as such, occupied by perhaps half a dozen people paying rent for their individual occupation of an otherwise unconverted house.
	This is particularly the case in towns and cities where there are substantial numbers of students. With the expansion of higher education over the past two decades, there are many such towns. The city that I represent, Southampton, is one of those, with an estimated population of 28,000 students in a city of about 220,000 people. It is a city that I represent along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the former president of the students union. Although university authorities have built increasing numbers of halls of residence and student flats, the majority of students live in such HMOs, under one roof, sharing facilities and, according to a court ruling of 1995 in the Barnes  v. Sheffield case, living as a single household.
	It is right that a range of types of accommodation should be available to people. HMOs of various types provide important accommodation for young people, single people and people who are seeking shorter-term accommodation. The difficulty that local authorities face in considering how the different types of housing stock are to be deployed is that most types of stock—flats and small or larger houses—and changes of use of building from commercial to residential are all subject to the local planning regime, whereas the conversion of houses from family occupation to multiple occupation is not.
	Under present planning legislation, a landlord can simply purchase a family house, possibly with a buy-to-let mortgage, and place five or six tenants in the house immediately. Cumulatively, such HMOs have a substantial impact on the character and amenity of neighbourhoods and, over and above the self-sustaining market that they create, on the inability of families to purchase houses where "studentification" has taken hold, because of the power of purchase that such landlords hold. HMOs raise all the issues of transient tenancies, of large numbers of extra cars parked, and possibly of noise. In short, the area becomes quite different in character.
	Despite the fact that HMOs are a specific kind of housing, they are the only kind that is effectively beyond the reach of local planning arrangements. That is because under present planning law, dwelling-houses are regarded as one kind of use, and are so defined in the use class orders that derive from planning legislation. According to the use class orders, with minor but important exceptions a dwelling-house is a dwelling-house is a dwelling-house, regardless of who occupies it. That is understandable in planning terms, as planning law is blind to occupants, and is concerned with land use and its effects.
	To an extent, planning law acknowledges that multiple occupancy of a house has land use consequences, but the use class order effectively exempts a change of use within the class for a house with up to seven occupants. A very large HMO, therefore, can come under local planning scrutiny, but the vast bulk of HMOs do not have seven occupants, so the distinction is pretty redundant.
	Housing law has moved to recognise the reality of houses in multiple occupation. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Housing Act 2004 established extensive procedures whereby local authorities can register HMOs and license landlords to run them. The qualifying point for general registration under the Housing Act is five occupants living in a three-storey house, although more widespread registration schemes may be introduced with the agreement of the Secretary of State.
	That is a welcome change. As it is implemented, it delivers the prospect of HMOs that are better managed, and the revocation of licences for landlords where such management consistently falls below a level acceptable to local communities. However, it does nothing about HMOs becoming HMOs in the first place. Furthermore, it introduces two different regimes for the definition of HMOs. The Housing Act, for example, specifically includes student houses in its definition of HMOs, because it defines an HMO as a dwelling in which a number of people not related to each other live under one roof. That, in turn, entails a definition of a family and what it means, in housing terms, to be related. Nevertheless, the Act encompasses the reality of HMOs in a way that planning law does not.
	What is to be done? The title of my Bill indicates what should be done: the process of effectively changing the use of a family house to that of an HMO, whether that happens through the purchase of a previously occupied house or, as is becoming increasingly common, through the purchase of a new property for buy-to-let purposes, should be regulated through the local development and planning process.
	It has been suggested that the way to achieve that aim is to change the use class definition of a dwelling-house and to place use as an HMO outside the definition—the placing of an HMO into the category of use changes that always need planning permission. That is, essentially, what has been done in Northern Ireland. That route is attractive, but the numbers entailed in the revised order in Northern Ireland—more than two unrelated people in a house—suggest that there might be difficulties in defining what relationships trigger what definition, and whether a small HMO can in reality be said to lead to a real effect on land use as a result of the change in the nature of occupation.
	In my view, it would be far simpler to bring the definitions in the Housing Act 2004 of numbers licensable, and what constitutes a family, into planning law—in this instance into the use class and schedules in the use class order derived from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. My Bill would redefine an HMO as requiring planning permission for change of use if more than four people were to occupy the house, and to bring the Housing Act 2004 definition of a family into planning law. In that way, local authorities would have the ability, subject to all the proper safeguards and requirements of the planning process, to determine whether all but the smallest HMOs should receive the go-ahead. That might be backed up by guidance statements about density in local planning framework documents. Local authorities would also be able to cross-reference the houses coming before them for licensing purposes to check whether those houses should go through the planning process, and whether enforcement action should be taken. In truth, this Bill would be a modest amendment to existing planning law; indeed, it would amend existing orders following primary legislation.
	The Bill is modest, but it could have a large effect on the weave of the local variety of housing provision in localities in towns and cities, so that the unplanned and often unanticipated swing of entire streets or neighbourhoods towards HMOs would become, over time, a thing of the past. I therefore commend the Bill to the House—but in the uneasy knowledge that it is just possible that it may not complete its passage through the House, even if its progress is agreed today.
	I therefore also commend the provisions in the Bill to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government, who by felicitous coincidence are sitting on the Treasury Bench this afternoon in anticipation of future business. I say to them that spending an afternoon Upstairs in Committee would make a real and substantial difference to the future mix and balance of communities, as I have described today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Andy Reid, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Alan Simpson, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Martin Salter, Sandra Gidley and Fiona Mactaggart.

Houses in Multiple Occupation

Dr. Alan Whitehead accordingly presented a Bill to require planning approval for the change of use of housing to multiple occupation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 October, and to be printed [Bill 109].

Orders of the Day

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Public Bill Committee, further considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Orders under Part 1 of Local Government Act 2000: Wales

'(1) Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of economic, social or environmental well-being etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3(7) (limits on power to promote well-being) and section 4(5) (strategies for promoting well-being), for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers".
	(3) In section 5 (power to amend or repeal enactments relating to power to promote well-being), for subsection (4) substitute—
	"(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the Welsh Ministers.
	(4A) In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—
	(a) must not make any provision amending, repealing or disapplying any Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales, and
	(b) must not make any provision amending, revoking or disapplying subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers (or the National Assembly for Wales established under the Government of Wales Act 1998) without the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
	(4B) Subsection (4A) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is making incidental or consequential provision."
	(4) In subsection (5) of that section, for "The National Assembly for Wales" substitute "The Welsh Ministers".
	(5) In section 6 (power to modify enactments concerning plans etc)—
	(a) in subsection (1), at the end insert "so far as that enactment has effect in relation to a local authority in England"; and
	(b) omit subsections (5) and (6).
	(6) In section 7 (power to modify enactments concerning plans etc: Wales)—
	(a) in subsection (1)—
	(i) for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers"; and
	(ii) for "to which subsection (2) applies" substitute "(whenever passed or made) which requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy relating to any particular matter";
	(b) omit subsection (2);
	(c) in subsection (4), for "the National Assembly for Wales considers" substitute "the Welsh Ministers consider"; and
	(d) omit subsection (6).
	(7) At the end of that section insert—
	"(8) An order under this section may not make a provision which, if it were a provision of a Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, would be outside the Assembly's legislative competence.
	(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), section 94(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 has effect as if paragraph (a) (matters within legislative competence) were omitted.
	(10) Subject to subsection (11), a statutory instrument which contains an order under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(11) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section which is made only for the purpose of amending an earlier such order—
	(a) so as to extend the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description, or
	(b) so that the earlier order, or any provision of the earlier order, ceases to apply to a particular authority or to authorities of a particular description,
	is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.".
	(8) In section 9 (procedure for orders under section 5 or 6)—
	(a) in subsection (2), for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers"; and
	(b) in subsection (3)(d), for "the National Assembly for Wales" substitute "the Welsh Ministers".'.— [Angela E. Smith.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments No. 56 and 58.

Angela Smith: New clause 1 amends part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000, which concerns the promotion of social, economic or environmental well-being. The amendments are needed as a consequence of power being given to the National Assembly for Wales in schedule 14 to the Bill, which will enable the Assembly to make an Assembly Measure in relation to community strategies prepared under the 2000 Act. The amendment to section 5 of the 2000 Act will prevent the Secretary of State from using, without consent, an order-making power to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply certain enactments that relate to Wales if she believes they will obstruct the well-being powers in the 2000 Act.
	The Secretary of State will be able to amend an Assembly Measure only with the consent of the National Assembly, and Welsh subordinate legislation only with the consent of Welsh Ministers. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must not use the power under section 5(1) to make provision which has effect in Wales without first consulting Welsh Ministers. That reflects the formal separation of the National Assembly's legislative and executive functions under the Government of Wales Act 2006.
	The amendment to section 6 of the 2000 Act will confine to England the Secretary of State's power to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment that requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy. In doing so, the equivalent power in respect of Wales will be conferred on Welsh Ministers. The amendment will ensure consistency with the wider devolved responsibility for local government in Wales and with the powers that the Bill will confer on the National Assembly. It will also remove any inadvertent need for the Assembly to seek the consent of the Secretary of State when making legislation that substantively affects only devolved matters.
	As a result of the new clause, amendments Nos. 56 and 58 are needed to repeal sections 6(5), 6(6), 7(2) and 7(6) of the 2000 Act and to commence the amendments two months after the Bill is enacted. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Alistair Burt: I welcome the Minister and thank her for that brief explanation of the amendments. When we asked her Department last week whether explanatory notes on the new clauses were available, we were told that they would not be available until the Bill reaches the House of Lords. I was therefore a little in the dark, but her clear explanation has helped me to some degree.
	The amendments represent a perfectly proper devolutionary measure, which we welcome. That is a slight contrast with other elements of the Bill. As Ministers know—we will discuss this when we reach some of the other clauses—our main hesitation is that we are not sure that it is truly a devolutionary measure, despite the Government's protestations otherwise. In some areas—we will probably divide on some of them—we wish that there had been greater devolution than is proposed. However, in this instance, as in other parts of the Bill, the Minister is definitely doing the job, which is welcome.
	It will be a matter of interest to see how the new relationship between the Government and the National Assembly for Wales works after the little stir of the mix in the Celtic firmament. The cosy relationships between Labour Administrations north of the border and west of Offa's dyke will create an interesting but necessary tension as localism and devolution are properly explored between the Assembly and Parliament. Another necessary tension to be explored between localism and devolution is that of local authorities and Westminster, particularly as the mix has been well and truly stirred by the results of the last set of local elections. As I read them out last Thursday, I do not intend to do so again, but we all know the score in that respect.
	In a desire to move on, without further ado I welcome the amendments and appreciate the Minister's explanation.

Hywel Williams: I welcome the opportunity to agree with the Government and celebrate the outbreak of fraternity and sorority in Cardiff, although that was five minutes ago and it may be different now. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government here will work with the Government in Cardiff, whatever their political complexion, in the spirit of openness, trust and progress.

Angela Smith: We may have had our first champagne moment, given that we all agree—and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government says that he is buying.
	Perhaps hon. Members misunderstand the new clause's intention. It has not been introduced in the spirit of party political advantage—it is the right thing to do to devolve power. The complexion of an authority—whether the Welsh Assembly Government or local authorities, which later provisions cover—is not relevant to the spirit of devolution that we are promoting today. I am grateful for the support of hon. Members of different parties.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned explanatory notes. Much of the content of the measure and the amendments that the Government are introducing today are responses to discussions in Committee. As we go through the Bill, hon. Members will note the Government's enormous effort to respond to our wide-ranging and positive debate. That has inevitably delayed some of the explanatory notes. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the delay is the result of the spirit of co-operation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Requests for single-member electoral areas

'In the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19), after section 14 insert—
	"14A Requests for single-member electoral areas
	(1) A principal council which falls within subsection (3) may request the Electoral Commission—
	(a) to give the Boundary Committee for England a direction under section 13(3) relating to the council's area, and
	(b) to direct that Committee (under section 13(6)) that their recommendations under section 13(3) must contain recommendations as to single-member electoral areas.
	(2) In subsection (1) "recommendations as to single-member electoral areas" means a recommendation, as respects each electoral area in the council's area, as to whether the electoral area should return one councillor.
	(3) A principal council falls within this subsection if—
	(a) it is not the case that each of the electoral areas in the council's area returns one councillor, and
	(b) the council is subject to a scheme for whole-council elections.
	(4) A council is "subject to a scheme for whole-council elections" if, in each year in which ordinary elections of councillors of the council are to be held, all the councillors are to be elected.
	(5) If the Electoral Commission grant a request under this section—
	(a) they must notify the Boundary Committee for England of the request when they give the directions requested, and
	(b) subject to subsection (6), where the Boundary Committee for England make recommendations under section 13(3) in response to those directions they must recommend that each electoral area in the council's area should return one councillor.
	(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not require the Boundary Committee for England to make any recommendation that they consider would be inappropriate having regard to the matters which they are required by section 13(5)(a) to (c) to have regard to.
	(7) If the Electoral Commission decide not to grant a request under this section they must notify the council that made the request of—
	(a) their decision, and
	(b) the reasons for it.
	14B Provision supplementary to section 14A
	(1) Nothing in section 14A prevents the Electoral Commission—
	(a) from making a direction under section 13 where there has been no request under section 14A, or
	(b) if they grant a request under section 14A, from making directions under section 13(6) in addition to the one requested.
	(2) Nothing in section 14A prevents the Boundary Committee for England, when making a recommendation as to whether electoral areas should return one councillor, from making other recommendations under section 13(3).
	(3) In section 14A(2) and (5) references to electoral areas are, in relation to a case where the Boundary Committee for England make recommendations for change to the number or boundaries of electoral areas in the council's area, to the recommended electoral areas."'.— [Angela E. Smith.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 5— Duty of local authority to provide Boundary Committee with information.
	Government new clause 6— Consequential amendments.
	Government amendment No. 89
	Amendment No. 163, in clause 37, page 21, line 4, at end insert—
	'(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) the local authority may from time to time make proposals to adjust the number of councillors per ward and must hold a referendum in the ward or wards affected before taking any steps to implement them
	(5) The local authority may not pass a resolution which makes the proposed change or changes unless the result of the referendum is to approve the proposals.
	(6) If the result of the referendum is not to approve the proposals, the local authority must publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—
	(a) summarises the proposals;
	(b) states that the referendum did not approve the proposals;
	(c) summarises the authority's existing arrangements; and
	(d) states that the authority will be continuing to operate those arrangements.'.
	Amendment No. 265, in clause 39, page 22, line 16, at end insert—
	'(1A) An order under subsection (1) must be made at least a year before it is due to take effect.'.
	Government amendment No. 119.
	Government new schedule 1— 'Elections: consequential amendments'.

Angela Smith: New clause 4 would give councils greater flexibility about the arrangements of their wards or divisions. It gives councils the ability to initiate a move to single-member electoral areas by granting them a power to make requests about such provision in their area. It does that in a way that safeguards propriety and avoids any risks of perceived gerrymandering, unlike the amendments that Conservative Members have tabled. The new clause achieves those safeguards through maintaining the involvement of the independent Electoral Commission and the independent boundary committee.
	The new clause delivers the White Paper commitment to give local authorities holding whole council elections the freedom to move to single-member electoral areas. By that, we mean district wards or county divisions, although most of the latter are single-member areas. Single-member areas can deliver stronger accountability. They provide a strong link between the councillor and his or her electorate and give clarity of leadership to the locality.
	Calls for single-member wards are well established. In 1986, the Widdicombe Committee recommended them, stating that they
	"provide a strong link between the member and his or her constituent".
	In 1995, the Local Government Commission for England supported the Widdicombe recommendations for single-member wards. We are giving local authorities the opportunity to act on those recommendations, if they wish to do so. It is a matter for the authorities.
	We also recognise that single-member electoral areas are not always the right solution. There may be individual local circumstances, such as the geography of the area, that make multi-member wards more appropriate. Single-member electoral areas are clearly not a sound electoral option when there are elections by thirds, since that would result in not all the council's electors having a vote in an election. That position should be avoided whenever possible.
	There is no question of requiring single-member electoral areas everywhere. We are giving local authorities the choice of requesting them when they consider it right to do that. Councils that do not have whole council elections will not have such a choice. Those that have whole council elections can make the choice as they see fit. Again, it is a devolutionary measure.
	Councils that want single-member electoral wards can request the Electoral Commission to direct the boundary committee to undertake a review of their area and make recommendations. If there is a large demand for single-member areas, the Commission would have to establish a work programme and decide on the timing of the reviews. In conducting those reviews, the boundary committee will be required to have regard to statutory criteria used for electoral reviews. Those are: reflecting community identity and interests, ensuring effective and convenient local government, and providing equality of representation. If the boundary committee considers that those statutory criteria cannot be met everywhere for the council under review with single-member electoral areas, it will exceptionally be able to recommend one or more multi-member electoral areas for that council in order to provide a better balance between the statutory criteria.
	New clause 6 and the remaining Government amendments in the group make the necessary consequential and paving provisions to allow part 2 of the Bill to operate effectively. That includes ensuring that the boundary committee can, in conducting electoral reviews, obtain the information that it needs from local authorities. Taken together, the new clauses and amendments deliver our White Paper commitment to devolve to councils the initiative to seek single-member electoral areas where it is right to do so.

Robert Syms: I have always rather liked single-member electoral areas for reasons that the Minister has suggested. There is a line of accountability with smaller districts, which can make life that little bit easier. We had quite a canter around the subject in Committee, where I raised some concerns because it was not clear at that stage whether varying the number of members per ward was to be upwards or downwards. We received the Minister's assurances that it would be three, two or one and I recall our discussing the geography of Tameside in great detail.
	The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a good argument about the position when authorities put together many towns that all have their own proud history. He argued that fitting the electoral arrangements to suit strong local ties sometimes caused difficulty. I know from experience as a parliamentary candidate in Walsall that it was not unusual to find that an electoral area based on a housing estate had had a bit added on from somewhere 3 or 4 miles away in order to meet the electoral arrangements. I can see the overwhelming logic of what the Government are trying to do, but I would like to probe them further on one or two aspects.
	Under new clause 4, an authority that has a council election will be able to apply to the Electoral Commission for single-member wards or to review each of the electoral areas within its district. If it had 20 wards, I presume—I would like the Minister to confirm it—that it could recommend that they all be single-member areas or that some should be three or two or one in order to suit the local circumstance. I presume that the boundary committee would look into any such proposal, reflect on it and consult before giving its decision to the local authority.
	I presume that the purpose is to stop gerrymandering. Clearly, a ward of three members might have one political outcome, but in a ward of two members or one it would not be beyond the wit of anyone who had knocked on doors and gained some feel for the area to create a different pattern of representation. If an authority were allowed to do that without going to the boundary committee, it might be possible to break up certain wards in a borough for some sort of party political advantage. We all realise that we would not want that, simply because if one party won one borough that way, another party might do it in another borough—so we all want a fair system of representation.
	Will the Minister confirm that if an authority puts up a scheme, some consultation would have to take place? I presume that the boundary committee would undertake further consultation in order to decide whether to approve a scheme or, if not, to give its reasons for declining it. I presume that the boundary committee could propose variations on a scheme, as with any of its dealings, because it does not wholly agree with what the authority is proposing.

Michael Fabricant: I am following my hon. Friend's logic with considerable interest. Does he understand whether the proposal might involve a two-way street? I am not clear about that; perhaps the Minister will clarify the point when she winds up the debate. If the boundary committee decides that a one-member ward is a good idea and that goes ahead, but for one reason or another it does not work as well as expected, will it be possible to make a similar application after five or six years, saying, for example, "Okay, it hasn't worked. Let's go back to a two or three-member ward"?

Robert Syms: Perhaps the Minister will pick up that point later. It is clear that the Government have moved on the question of whole council elections, and there might be further debate on that issue. My response to my hon. Friend is that all local authorities have their electoral arrangements reviewed periodically, and I presume that if they change their arrangements between one, two or three members in a particular borough, the next time a review took place within the ordinary schedule, those arrangements could be changed again. I do not see any great reason for an immediate change to that process. Also, determining whether something works or does not work can sometimes be quite subjective.
	A local authority will produce a scheme and present it to the boundary committee, which will either approve it or give its reasons for not doing so. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether, if there were a variation on the scheme, the boundary committee could enter into negotiations or propose changes to the scheme. Alternatively, would the boundary committee have to accept or reject the scheme put forward by the local authority with a yes or a no? How much dialogue could take place?
	The Minister looks somewhat quizzical. If a local authority put forward a scheme for its area to the boundary committee, and the boundary committee agreed with 90 per cent. of it but had concerns about 10 per cent., would it have to reject it entirely on the ground of that 10 per cent. that it believed the local authority had got wrong, or could there be a degree of discussion whereby both sides could reach agreement, with the scheme being rejected only if there were no common ground? A great deal of time could be wasted if local authorities' schemes were simply chucked out because of a disagreement on just part of the proposal. I should like to hear a little more detail about how the provision will operate, but the Government are going down the right road in the manner in which they are constructing the various new clauses.
	Given our concerns about aspects of the provision, however, we have tabled amendment No. 163, which calls for a referendum in the affected wards. We are unlikely to press that to a vote, because I am not sure how practical the proposal is. It is just the Opposition trying to flesh out the fact that there could be concerns among the electorate, who are used to the way in which their electoral arrangements work and might be worried about any proposed changes.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that the concept of one man—or, indeed, one woman—for one ward has a certain simplicity, just as one Member of Parliament for one constituency does? In my constituency, we have Lichfield city council—as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—and Lichfield district council. In the recent local elections, people were confronted with one ballot paper on which they had to vote for five candidates, and another on which they had to vote for three. They then had to put the buff ballot paper in the yellow ballot box—it was meant to be a yellow ballot paper, but it had been printed on buff paper—and the white ballot paper in the white box. Basically, it all got very confusing. There is a certain elegance to the idea of one person for one ward.

Robert Syms: The first-past-the-post system—particularly the single-Member first-past-the-post system—is the simplest, which is why we tend not to get many spoilt ballots. We shall have to wait for the review into what happened north of the border, but it is clear that problems can arise with the more complicated electoral systems, particularly if more than one system is in operation on the same day. Having looked at the ballots in Poole borough, where we have three-member wards elected in the whole council election, I am still surprised that some people do not understand that they have to vote three times. Some people might deliberately vote just once, if, for example, there is only one Labour candidate, but these systems can cause a degree of confusion.

Tom Levitt: If I have interpreted the amendment correctly, it proposes that if a council holds a referendum on a change in the organisational details and the referendum fails to approve it, a process should take place to inform the public that the status quo will continue. However, it does not propose that should the referendum approve the change a formal notice should appear in the newspapers telling people that their electoral system will change. Is that an oversight, or is there a reason for it?

Robert Syms: It is a probing amendment; it is not meant to be perfect legislation. People become used to a particular system, and although most of us think that a single-member system would have its benefits, it might well cause concern in certain areas. It is horses for courses. Let us call this the Tameside question. I think that the proposed system would work well in industrial communities where it might be possible to devise a better arrangement.
	Amendment No. 265, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, concerns election dates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) will speak to the amendment, but I will say that in Committee we briefly discussed organising local elections to coincide with the dates of European elections. That would have various benefits and disbenefits, but the amendment suggests that if the Government decided to hold the elections on the same day they should give 12 months' notice. I do not think that unreasonable, because we know the dates of local and European elections. If there is to be a change, I do not see why the parties and returning officers should not be given the maximum amount of time to deal with it.
	I welcome the thrust of the Government's new clauses and amendments, which I think make the position a little clearer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a few reassurances about the way in which the new system might work.

Andrew Gwynne: First, I declare an interest as a member of Tameside metropolitan borough council. I am flattered that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to "the Tameside question". I am also pleased that the Government have an answer to the Tameside question, if not to the West Lothian question. However, to be fair to my constituents in Stockport, I think that there is also a Stockport question. My arguments in Committee about Dukinfield and Audenshaw are also relevant to Heaton Chapel and Heaton Norris in my constituency, which, by virtue of being split between the South Reddish and the North and South Heaton wards, is represented in Parliament both by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).
	When we consider local areas of that kind, we understand that home really is where the heart is. The people of Heaton Chapel and Heaton Norris feel that they are part of a single identifiable community, as are those in Dukinfield and in Audenshaw. It is very frustrating for them to be told by petty bureaucrats that they are no longer in the ward to which the majority of their community belongs. They become very passionate about it. I am pleased that the Government's proposals mean that if communities in those areas wish it, there can be much smaller wards reflecting the make-up of those communities. If the proposals are accepted, the people of Heaton Norris will no longer have to be represented by South Reddish councillors, but can be represented by Heaton Norris councillors. Likewise, those in Dukinfield will not need to be split between the Dukinfield and Dukinfield Stalybridge wards.
	I do not think that a referendum is necessary, however. I think that in areas such as those I have mentioned there will be a popular will for the changes, and that as long as the checks and balances provided by the Electoral Commission and the boundary committee are retained, any grievances expressed by political parties can be raised fairly at the public inquiry.

Michael Fabricant: I was on a narrow boat last weekend, and one of my companions was Clive Patrick who stood for the Conservatives in Stalybridge—he lost, although he put up a brave fight. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government's proposal offers a good opportunity for such small towns and villages to have their own individual representatives, rather than a larger amorphous mass?

Andrew Gwynne: I agree, although I must add that the hon. Gentleman's friend probably lost handsomely in Stalybridge and Hyde, which is part of the Labour stronghold of Tameside. That takes us back to the Tameside question. There are not only the nine fiercely independent towns that were cobbled together—to borrow a phrase used by the hon. Member for Poole—in 1974, but within those communities there are smaller identifiable areas. For example, in my town of Denton there is Haughton Green and Dane Bank, which I have the privilege of representing on the council. Such areas have as much right to be recognised as the towns and districts.
	The Government amendments are the right way forward: without the need for a referendum they ensure that where there is the will among local people to be recognised in smaller areas, that can be achieved. Certainly in metropolitan districts, that was not possible in the past. That is why I welcome the Government amendments.

Andrew Stunell: Things would be a great deal easier for the Government and the Conservatives if there were proportionality in the voting system. That would be fairer for the voter and simplify the legislation substantially, and some of the issues that have been highlighted would not have arisen. However, given that we have been unsuccessful in persuading Members to add such a provision to the Bill, we do not dissent from the Government's proposals and think that the direction that they are going in is appropriate.
	Nevertheless, I wish to discuss our amendment No. 265. It is simple: it proposes that any order to bring together local elections and European elections should be made at least a year before it is due to take effect. We discussed in Committee the concept of bringing together those two dates, and the Minister explained the Government's thinking. I have subsequently received a letter from the Electoral Commission—I am unsure whether an identical letter has been sent to the Minister. Its author states:
	"I am writing in response to the comments you made during the second reading debate and committee stages...I would like to take this opportunity to outline the Electoral Commission's concerns"
	about the new clause. The letter goes on to say that the new clause allows the Secretary of State
	"to combine local elections with a European parliamentary election by statutory order.
	We believe that provision should be made on the face of the Bill for the Order moving the date of the election to have to be made at least a year before it is due to take effect."
	The Electoral Commission gives two reasons for that:
	"We are concerned that without such provision, present or future Governments may be able to gain political advantage by moving the date of the elections at a later stage.
	We are also concerned that late notice of a change of election date would not give electoral administrators sufficient time to be prepared for a combined election."

Tom Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government were right to postpone the 2005 county council elections because of the problems caused by foot and mouth disease? Does he accept that 12 months' notice could not possibly have been given in that situation, and that his amendment would make those circumstances impossible to address in the same way as they were on that occasion?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman, who is a close geographical neighbour of mine, is absolutely wrong, because whether this provision is added to the Bill would make no difference to the procedure used when the foot and mouth epidemic broke out, when provisions had to be brought before the House and discussed. That is the safeguard situation. This provision does not remove the capacity of the Government or Parliament to change dates in an emergency—such as the invasion of Kent by some unforeseen enemy. One can see that changes might have to be made in extremis, but the provision is not about such situations; nor, when Ministers introduced the provision, did they suggest that it had anything to do with such situations.
	As well as giving two reasons for concern, the Electoral Commission pointed out that the provision is consistent with existing legislation. I was not aware of the reference it gives, but it says:
	"A one year notice period would also be consistent with existing legislation. Section 37(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides for the ordinary date of local elections to be changed as long as it is done before 1st February the year before (i.e. slightly more than a year) the original date of the election."
	In one sense, this is a probing amendment, but we have been put up to it by the Electoral Commission, which has given good reasons why it should be taken more seriously than just an attempt to squeeze a concession out of the Government. The commission has made a strong case, and all the Opposition parties share the concerns about it. The present Government are full of integrity and good intentions—they never make a mistake or a cheap political judgment—so, obviously, I exonerate them from the wild accusation by the commission that they might be involved in such activity. However, the commission also mentions future Governments, and by the time we reach June 2009, Labour might be in opposition and might face a different, more oppressive Government.
	In Committee, the Minister was quizzed on the point of introducing the provision. She replied:
	"We seek to give the Secretary of State the power to combine such elections without the need for primary legislation by making an order to combine elections that fall due at around the same time." ——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2007; c. 591-92.]
	Ministers would still have that opportunity if the amendment were accepted. It is just that they would have to think of it a bit earlier and not leave it to be informed by some tactical political consideration nearer the date.
	We would argue that the concept of making that change and imposing a limit is what the Government originally set out to do. It is sensible to introduce the safeguard that the Electoral Commission believes should be introduced, and the idea of a one-year moratorium on date changes fits existing legislative provision, in the 1983 Act. I look forward to hearing the Government's response. If they do not feel able to accede to our proposal at this point, I hope that they will give a clear indication that they will engage in discussion with the commission and, if necessary, table an appropriate amendment later. For a second champagne moment, the Minister could say that she has heard the argument, listened to what the commission has had to say and is delighted to accept our amendment.

Angela Smith: The champagne moment has passed.
	We have had an interesting discussion and I was pleased by the reassurance from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that his amendment was a probing amendment. Both he and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) spoke about having to ensure that the election process was as simple as possible and that any changes provided clarity for electors. The hon. Member for Poole made some specific points on that subject and I shall come to those shortly.
	It is fair to say that all the amendments are about giving councils more say in the electoral arrangements for their area and enabling them to take the initiative. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that the public retain confidence in the fairness and probity of our electoral arrangements. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Poole made it clear that he did not intend to press his amendment No. 163 to a vote, as it would remove probity from the process, leaving it open to manipulation. The Electoral Commission opposed the amendment on the grounds that it risked undermining the established process of electoral reviews and the principle of equality of representation across local authorities.
	The hon. Member for Poole said that he was trying to ensure that it would not be possible for local councils, on a whim, to increase the number of electors in a ward where they had a majority, and reduce the number of electors in another ward. In fact, although the Government amendments would not do that, his amendment would. Taking it at face value, amendment No. 163 could mean that electors in a ward could be asked by the council, "Do you want to increase the number of councillors you have?" It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the electors to respond that they did want that but, since it does not specify that the offer would have to be made to residents in every ward, the amendment would therefore undermine the principles of equality of representation. All hon. Members are elected, and I appreciate that all of us would like to have some control over our constituency boundaries. Those of us facing boundary commission changes perhaps feel that more strongly than others, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's aim is to ensure that there is equality between all the votes cast in an election.
	The hon. Gentleman asked various specific questions about the boundary committee's role in single-member wards. When a local authority approaches the Electoral Commission to seek authority to move to single-member wards, it will be for the commission to decide whether that move is appropriate. The exceptional cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, where multi-member wards were considered to be more appropriate, would be referred to the boundary committee. Councils would not be able to make the decision in such cases.
	The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked whether single-member wards could revert back at a later date. They can, but such decisions would be made following the regular review undertaken by the boundary committee. The Bill does not provide for such decisions, as a two-way street already exists.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to a letter that he had received from the Electoral Commission. I wish that I had been able to see it before today's debate, as that would have enabled me to give a more considered response, but I hope that he will consent to give us sight of that letter as the debate goes on. He explained that his amendment No. 265 would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House any order that combined local government and European elections one year before it was due to take effect.
	When Ministers looked at the amendment, our concern was that, given the need for meaningful consultation on decisions about setting election dates, the lead-in time for all the necessary procedures would be something like 18 months. We would like to discuss the proposal further, as we want to ensure that the process is not rushed, but orders such as the one that we are discussing must be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and we consider that to be adequate protection.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove was worried about party political advantage, although I do not see where that would lie. The Government do not consider his amendment to be necessary but, without having seen the views of the Electoral Commission, it is difficult to make any further comment. I hope that he might be prepared to share the contents of the letter from the Electoral Commission with us.

Andrew Stunell: The communication was dated 9 May and it had not occurred to me that the information was not already in the Government's hands. I shall of course make sure that copies are available immediately after these proceedings.

Angela Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I certainly do not suggest that he should have shown us a private letter to him, which he is obviously entitled to use, but it is a shame that the Electoral Commission did not share with us its thoughts about legislation that the Government were putting before the House. At this stage we cannot support the amendments, but if we can have a look at the hon. Gentleman's information, we will consider that particular point further before coming to a final decision.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Duty of local authority to provide Boundary Committee with information

'(1) The Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 13 (electoral reviews and recommendations), after subsection (7) insert—
	"(8) A local authority must, if requested by the Boundary Committee for England to do so, provide that Committee, by such date as that Committee may specify, with any information that that Committee may reasonably require in connection with any of their functions under this section."'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

'Schedule (Elections: consequential amendments) has effect.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Entities controlled etc by local authorities

'(1) An order under this section is an order which requires, prohibits or regulates the taking of specified actions by entities connected with a local authority.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in relation to—
	(a) all English local authorities;
	(b) English local authorities of particular descriptions;
	(c) particular English local authorities.
	(3) The Welsh Ministers may make an order under this section in relation to—
	(a) all Welsh local authorities;
	(b) Welsh local authorities of particular descriptions;
	(c) particular Welsh local authorities.
	(4) An order under this section may also include provision which requires, prohibits or regulates—
	(a) the taking of specified actions by a local authority in relation to entities connected with the local authority;
	(b) the taking of specified actions by members or officers of a local authority who are qualifying persons.
	(5) An order under this section may make provision in relation to—
	(a) every entity connected with a local authority;
	(b) such entities of a particular description.
	(6) Where an order under this section makes provision in relation to entities of a particular description, it may provide for any expression used in identifying that description of entity to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by the order; or
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.
	(7) For the purposes of this section an entity ("E") is "connected with" a local authority at any time if—
	(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and
	(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority's statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.
	(8) In this section—
	"actions" includes courses of action;
	"English local authority" means a local authority in England;
	"entity" means any entity, whether or not a legal person;
	"financial year" means a period for which accounts of the local authority must be prepared by reason of section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or section 13 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23);
	"local authority" means any body which—
	(a) is a local authority for the purposes of section 21 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) (see subsection (6) of that section and section 23 of that Act); and(b) is required to prepare statements of accounts by regulations made under section 27 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) or section 39 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23);
	"qualifying person" means a person who—
	(a) is authorised to represent the local authority at meetings of an entity that is connected with the local authority; or(b) is a member or director of such an entity or the holder of any other specified position in relation to such an entity;
	"specified" means specified, or of a description specified, by the order;
	"Welsh local authority" means a local authority in Wales.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 23— Trusts.
	Government new clause 24— Further provision about orders.
	Government new clause 25— Exemptions from orders.
	Government new clause 26— Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England.
	Government new clause 27— Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales.
	Government new clause 28— Consequential amendments.
	Government amendments Nos. 114, 115, 117, 121 and 122.
	Government new schedule 3— Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities.
	Government amendment No. 130.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the opportunity to table these amendments. I beg the indulgence of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) as I try to explain the proposals and to persuade the House that they are wholly desirable. I shall not go into too much detail, because if you thought that some of our previous debates were technical, Madam Deputy Speaker, "you ain't seen nothing yet", as they used to say in westerns.
	The arrangements for ensuring accountability and propriety in the conduct of local authority companies are set out in part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and in an order made under it—the Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995. The current controls variously placed on the face of legislation and in the provisions of the order address the accountability, auditing and personnel requirements of a local authority company and are known collectively as the propriety controls.
	The existing part V arrangements are complex, outdated, and cover only companies, which is the essential point. Local authorities operate through entities that are not embraced by the narrow definition of a company provided in part 5.
	Previously, the capital finance regime for local authority companies relied on part V to define the relationship between a local authority and its companies when deciding the borrowing limits for the authority as a whole—not just for the company. Now, under the prudential borrowing regime, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who is not in the Chamber, authorities are free to take on as much debt as they can afford to service from their revenue resources. There are no longer any direct constraints on borrowing by the companies or similar entities that they own.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He quite rightly says that local councils are proprietors—if that is the right word—of organisations other than companies, as defined by the companies legislation. Will he go into a little more detail about precisely what he means? Is he talking about partnerships, associations, sole traders or companies that in some way are not controlled by the companies legislation? I was under the impression that a body could not call itself a company or a corporation unless it was either a limited company or a public limited company. Perhaps he could amplify that point.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman said that he was grateful for my giving way. I am grateful to him for intervening, because it gives me a chance to draw breath. As I will go on to explain in more detail, in the diverse world of commissioning and in the light of the greater co-operation and the partnerships between local authorities and other public, private and voluntary sector organisations, the issue of the types of organisations that are owned by local authorities is complex. The idea of a council owning a company has been around for many years. Interestingly, the definition is partly based on companies legislation and partly on part V of the 1989 Act. A local authority company is in some ways different from what one might in lay person's terms describe as a company.
	The next part of my speech explains the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that he will support the measures when he has heard the explanation. I am grateful that he has stayed awake to listen to what I am saying. Tens—if not hundreds—of millions of pounds of public money is backed up in these organisations, so it is important that we explain the measures and seek the support of the House.
	There are no longer direct constraints on borrowing by companies or similar entities that authorities own, but any transaction by such an entity that increases or reduces the revenue resources of the authority will still need to be taken into account under the prudential regime, since it will affect the amount of borrowing that the authority can afford to service. The borrowing of that organisation is ultimately underwritten by the local authority and, therefore, the taxpayer. There are implications not just for the local authority and the council tax payer, but overall for public sector borrowing requirements and therefore for the central tax payer.
	The borrowing regime currently relies on a different set of accounting definitions, which are provided in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy "Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom: A Statement of Recommended Practice", which is known in the trade as SORP. I have a copy of the document and I am tempted to say that if the Opposition push their amendments in later groups, I will read it out.

Michael Fabricant: If you go too fast, you may need to.

Phil Woolas: We have four hours. In the spirit of consensus, I have brought a copy of the document with me for the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire to read, should he wish to take it away with him. It is an important document and we are grateful to CIPFA for producing and monitoring it. The definitions in relation to accounting procedures, companies and entities that are contained in the SORP document capture a more appropriate relationship between an authority and its bodies than the part V definitions that I referred to earlier.

Michael Fabricant: There is only one thing that slightly concerns me. If we are going to broaden the definition of organisations that are owned by councils and, as the Minister said, organisations and councils can borrow, does he fear that the overall public sector borrowing requirement, taking into account council borrowings, might exceed Treasury and Bank of England guidelines?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. My intention and belief is that the measures will have the opposite effect. Including in statute what the CIPFA code does will guarantee that public sector borrowing overall—and specifically borrowing in relation to local authorities—is more accurately defined. That will mean that the books can better reflect the liability that exists. I would not want any suggestion whatsoever that the Chancellor's golden rules were being broken in any way, especially at the moment. Local authority organisations such as some of the limited liability partnerships—to give an example, as the hon. Gentleman requested in his previous intervention—are covered by what is currently in the code of practice.
	The new clauses replace part V of the 1989 Act. They will ensure that an appropriate range of entities are covered by propriety controls. They will also provide a less bureaucratic regime for local government in considering the relationship authorities have with their entities—if I can use that term to capture all the bodies involved—for accounting, capital finance and propriety control purposes. Authorities will need to have regard only to a single definition of entities.
	The new clauses confer on the Secretary of State a power to require, regulate or prohibit the taking of specified actions by an entity connected with a local authority. The power is wide enough to ensure that an entity should not undertake an activity that the parent authority could not itself undertake if the need arose to do so. That is an important point for the private sector. Where entities might be in a marketplace with other organisations, we seek to ensure a level playing field for competition. Our intention is to use the power to make an order to apply propriety controls to the wider range of entities covered by the SORP definitions. We intend to consult on the controls that should apply to such entities, recognising that, as with the present arrangements, it may be appropriate for differential controls to apply to entities depending on the precise relationship of the authority to the body.
	Consistent with that, the provisions permit an order to differentiate the application of controls to entities of a particular description, enabling the propriety controls to operate on a tiered basis according to the degree of control that the authority has over the entity—in other words, so that the liability recognises the proportion of involvement in it. New clause 22(6) allows the description of that relationship to be provided by a reference in a document. It is our intention to use that power to differentiate according to accounting definitions contained in the CIPFA SORP guidance.
	An entity is considered to be connected with a local authority if financial information about the entity must be included in the authority's statement of accounts for that year. This shows that the authority is able to derive benefits or to be exposed to the risk of potential losses arising from the relationship and it is these entities that we would wish to apply propriety controls to.
	Under its obligations as a trustee, a local authority could be exposed to the risk of potential losses and therefore we wish to ensure that trusts can be brought within the provisions of new clause 22 should that be desirable. As a trust is a purely equitable obligation, it does not easily fall within the consideration of an entity, which is why we have made this provision. New clause 23 brings trusts within the scope of an order made under new clause 22.
	The existing propriety controls ensure that entities that are significantly connected with a local authority are required to act transparently and in accordance with the standards of the authorities themselves. To ensure that we can replicate these controls, new clause 24 makes further provision about what propriety controls in an order made under new clause 22 might contain.
	We recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances in which the application of the propriety controls might not be appropriate to individual or particular descriptions of entities. Therefore, new clause 25 provides that the Secretary of State in England, or Ministers in Wales, can direct that these may be exempted from an order made under new clause 22.
	Other legislation relies on the definitions of "control", "joint control" and "influence" in part V. Following the repeal of part V, new clause 26 will give the Secretary of State the power to define, for the purposes of other enactments, those definitions by order. Although that is a separate order-making power, we intend to use the definitions provided by the CIPFA SORP guidance. New clause 27 makes similar provision to new clause 26, but the power is conferred on Welsh Ministers to define definitions for other enactments that are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.
	New clause 28 will repeal part V of the 1989 Act. It will also allow any consequential amendments made to subordinate legislation to make reference to a definition contained in a document identified by the order, such as the CIPFA SORP. Amendments Nos. 114, 115, 117, 121 and 122 will make provision regarding the procedure for orders made under new clause 22, the extent of the repeal of part V of the 1989 Act, and the commencement of the provisions. Amendment No. 130 details the extent of the repeals made by the provision. New schedule 3 relates to the consequential amendments that are necessary due to the repeal of part V to ensure the competence of enactments.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the new clauses and amendments. I read them carefully when they were tabled and started to wonder about their purpose, which he helpfully clarified. I have some questions about the measures because I have been in touch with the Local Government Association. While it sees them as a replacement for existing clauses, it is worried about the wide-ranging powers that are being taken and wants clarification of several aspects of the powers.
	What prompted the tabling of the new clauses? Have a series of problems been associated with the definitions of entities or the different forms of arm's length bodies that are run by local authorities? Are we considering purely a series of drafting changes, or do the measures reflect concern that has been raised by auditors or others? Does the fact that the measures have been introduced reveal an underlying worry about the way in which the bodies have been working, or does the Minister believe that this is purely a tidying process?
	I was interested by the Minister's little exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the public sector borrowing requirement. The Chancellor's ability to move things off the balance sheet is legendary. There is no danger of golden rules or anything else being broken while the Chancellor remains in his post, or while he remains Chancellor when he becomes Prime Minister, as he undoubtedly will. His ability to shift things to ensure that he does not break the golden rule will no doubt continue. I am not quite sure whether the powers are needed in such circumstances. We have noted the nifty ability to change golden rules and doubt that that will change much under a future regime.
	The new clauses will provide for the original powers, although the provisions have been redrafted. How often have the original powers needed to be used? There are two sorts of power: the power to prohibit or regulate under new clause 22, and the power to apply for consent under new clause 24. Has the Secretary of State used those powers, or have permissions been requested by local authorities? Have the powers been used often, or are they effectively nominal? I am trying to get to the heart of where the measures have come from. Have they arisen due to problems, are they designed to address anticipated problems, or are they purely drafting changes to accommodate the rise of entities in their different forms?
	Let me ask a question about the entities themselves. How many are we talking about? Is there a growing trend of such entities in local authorities? To that extent, is the Minister expressing concern that the bodies are moving slightly outside the control of local authorities and the Government? Is there any evidence that the number of entities is growing significantly and that such controls are thus necessary? To what extent does the Minister think that the Government are carrying out an exercise in second-guessing?
	Although we are considering a devolutionary Bill, we are discussing measures that give the Secretary of State powers that look significant on paper, even though the Government have the back-up position that the PSBR is relevant and that the Secretary of State must thus remain in control. However, if we are talking about the extent of risk taking among local authorities and the Government, as we will on Third Reading and we did earlier in the debate, how does the Minister see the powers fitting in with that?

Andrew Stunell: I realise that we are running the serious risk of the Minister invoking his threat and reading the whole CIPFA document to us. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a sniff of control freakery in some of the new clauses? We need to understand the precise context in which they have been proposed.

Alistair Burt: This is not a plea for the Minister to read more of that enlightening document. The hon. Gentleman echoes the concerns that I raised at the start of my speech. As I said, and as the LGA has noted, the powers look very wide ranging on paper. We need to know the reasons behind the measures and whether they represent a change from previous legislation to reflect issues that have been raised with the Department by local authorities, which have led it to want changes.
	When local authorities are inspected and audited, are these entities subject to the same audits and performance regulations, or are they subject to something quite separate and different? Finally, will there be any difference between the way in which entities that are trading and those that have become dormant will be dealt with? That last question is a bit technical, so the Minister might want to write to me about it.
	The amendments are technical and we will not wish to press them to a Division.

Michael Fabricant: Do not tell the Minister that.

Alistair Burt: "Don't tell him, Pike." I will definitely conceal that we will not be pressing the measures to a Division.
	My inquiry has been prompted by the need to know where the measures are coming from, given that they were not considered in Committee. If the Minister will give us that explanation and help out with several of the technical questions that I raised, Conservative Members will be grateful.

Neil Turner: The Minister might have inadvertently misled the House at the start of his speech. He indicated that, "You ain't seen nothing yet," came from a western, but it was actually said by Al Jolson in "The Jazz Singer". I would not want the Minister to have to come back to the House to make an abject apology for that, and neither would I want him to reply in syncopation.

Michael Fabricant: Following that brilliant speech, I do not know whether I can do justice to the debate. However, I want to raise several issues, although I was broadly content with what the Minister said. I understand that there are organisations other than just public companies in the sense of plcs and limited companies. Indeed, the Minister even talked about limited partnerships, yet a limited partnership would have been an oxymoron—is that the right word?—a few years ago because partnerships usually have no limits on their liability.
	I was reassured when the Minister said that one of the main objects of this group of new clauses was to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement could be more closely monitored, although I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that the goalposts for the economic cycle frequently move to ensure that the golden rule is never breached. Sadly, there are no explanatory notes to the Bill. I understand why, and I am not condemning the Government for it, but it does not make things any easier. I guess that it is a compliment to the civil servants, in that it shows how helpful explanatory notes are when they do produce them.
	Subsection (5) of new clause 22 says that an order under the new clause may make provision in relation to
	"every entity connected with a local authority",
	although it does not actually say "owned by" the local authority. Subsection (7) carries on from that because it says, in marvellously unclear English:
	"For the purposes of this section an entity ('E') is 'connected with' a local authority at any time if—
	(a) it is an entity other than the local authority; and
	(b) according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about E must be included in the local authority's statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls."
	I guess that "E" must be the name of a particular entity at that time. It is the phrase "connected with" that I do not understand. The Minister's explanation was perfectly logical, but the new clause does not seem to make any sense. Subsection (8), which contains some definitions, says that
	"'entity' means any entity, whether or not a legal person",
	but it says nothing about its being owned by the authority.
	In Lichfield—I always find myself mentioning Lichfield because it is such a beautiful place—we have a new theatre called the Lichfield Garrick. That would certainly be an entity because it is owned by the authority and, quite rightly and properly, its debt—because all theatres need subsidy and it is a particularly good theatre and it is good that it is subsidised—relates to the debt of the council. However, I wonder whether the wording of new clause 22 would cover other entities, not just those that are owned by local authorities. Why does the new clause refer to every entity as that which is "connected with"? Why are the words "connected with" used?

Bob Neill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is a lawyer, so perhaps he will tell me whether "connected with" has some legal meaning. Does "connected with" mean "owned by"?

Bob Neill: I now regret asking my hon. Friend to give way. Perhaps he could help me or ask the Minister to help me. Is not my hon. Friend's confusion added to by the fact that "connection" is referred to throughout the Bill, which I agree is separate from ownership as far as any of us can see? It does not necessarily involve shareholding because, as I understand it, it does not have to be a legal person. To make things worse, the heading of new clause 22 refers to "Entities controlled...by local authorities". It is the juxtaposition in the same context of "controlled", "connected" and "owned" that is perplexing. I hope that the Minister can clarify that for us.

Michael Fabricant: That is an important point. I am rather alarmed that my hon. Friend, who is a barrister or a solicitor—

Bob Neill: I never did this sort of work.

Michael Fabricant: At least not without payment.
	It is fascinating that the heading of new clause 22 "Entities controlled...by local authorities" implies ownership, but "connected with" does not, and could mean anything. Does that mean that any sort of association will be audited, and would that also apply to the public sector debt? If it did, the golden rule would be burst overnight.

Alison Seabeck: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask the Minister whether there is a legal definition of "connected"?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member will have the opportunity to ask the Minister directly.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) raises an interesting point, so yes, I will ask the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) seemed unable to answer me; I was quite shocked.  [Interruption.] Fifteen guineas?
	Does "connected with" mean, in law, owned by? If it does not mean owned by—and I suspect that it does not—what is the boundary that controls whether an entity falls within the ambit of new clause 22? The Minister was very clear in his explanation. He used the words "owned by", and we all understand what that means. That would mean having a 51 per cent. share or more in an organisation if shares were issued, or however else ownership is defined. Why, for the sake of clear English, is not the word "ownership" used, and what is the difference between "connected with" and owned by?

Bob Neill: I shall be very brief. First, I assure my hon. Friend that if he wants a definition of "fraudulent", "homicidal" or anything of that sort, I will do my best to oblige him, but "connection" is not an area in which I hold myself out as having any expertise, so I hope that the Minister can help us.
	I wonder whether the Minister can also help on another short matter. Clearly, the orders are quite wide ranging and can make provision for a large number of matters, but is it envisaged that this change in the clauses, and what is on the face of it a significant extension of powers, will have any impact on the scrutiny of any of these arm's length organisations? The definitions refer to the entity's position in accounting terms, but nothing is said about scrutiny. It may be that it is not intended that there should be any change, to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). If part of the justification relates to the operation of these organisations in the past, has failure or difficulty of scrutiny been any part of that? Can the Minister assure us that none of the changes would diminish scrutiny of any organisations in which significant sums of public money may be invested, in whatever fashion?

Phil Woolas: I think that there is unanimity is that the House will remember the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) long after they have forgotten the details of these new clauses.

Tom Levitt: Does my hon. Friend think it appropriate, given that it was an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), that "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" was also a song by Bachman-Turner Overdrive in the 1970s?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had some levity, but I think that we had better get back to the amendments before the House.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on his questions. As ever, he has clearly done his research, and he has given me the opportunity to allay the fears that the Local Government Association expressed to him. He asked whether these powers were too wide ranging and what prompted the change. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a history to this. The commitment to review part V of the 1989 Act was indeed trailed, as hon. Members know, through the White Paper "Modern local government: in touch with the people" published in July 1998, and in the "Modernising Local Government Finance" Green Paper in September 2000. The Government have, with their partners, a capital programmes working party technical sub-group. In 2003, at that sub-group, the LGA expressed a desire to move local authority companies to be defined according to accounting practices. This Bill provides an opportunity to do that, now that there have been adequate discussions. If I may, I shall explain that.
	We intend, of course, to consult on the content of the proposed order. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether there had been problems or whether we were tidying up. Essentially, we are tidying up because of the change in the architecture of local government provision of services. For the record, I am informed that the power has been used only twice since 1989, although I am not aware of the details of those two occasions. The hon. Gentleman implied that the Chancellor has moved the golden rules. I reject that charge, which is not backed up by evidence. Local government borrowing is an important part of the PSBR. The answer to his question about inspection and audit is, yes, they are subject to the same provisions. I am grateful for the caveat that he gave with his question about dormant companies or entities because he is absolutely right—the matter is too detailed for me to attempt an answer now.
	To answer the question of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about "control", "controlling", "ownership" and "connected with", the point at issue is what the potential liability is. A local authority could control an entity and, through that control, it could incur a liability that was, or was not, dependent on the local authority. The question of ownership and control relates to that. I made reference to that in the eighth point of my opening speech. I know that the hon. Gentleman followed my remarks closely, so I shall not repeat them, but I congratulate him on his vigilance in probing the point.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for that. He is talking about cases in which there could be liability. Let me give for my example an organisation that is not controlled or owned by a council, but is, for some reason, underwritten and guaranteed by a council—

Robert Syms: A theatre.

Michael Fabricant: Such as a theatre, as my hon. Friend suggests, although the Lichfield Garrick is not that type of organisation. If the council would be liable if anything were to happen to that organisation, would that be covered by the "connected with" definition?

Phil Woolas: That would depend on the nature of the contract between the local authority and the body. That is an extremely important point and it is why we propose to bring in the CIPFA regulations on accounting practice. Local authority treasurers must abide by accounting practice and they get their guidance from CIPFA. Annex 1 to the regulations—"Definitions in relation to group accounts"—is very specific on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I congratulate him on spotting the essence of the argument, which centres on where liability and control lie. The definition in annex 1 is:
	"An entity other than a subsidiary or joint venture in which the reporting authority has a participating interest and over whose operating and financial policies the reporting authority is able to exercise significant influence."
	He will be familiar with the fact that the definition of "control", "ownership" and "connected with" depends on the degree of control, whether it be through ownership, part ownership or control through contract or other such arrangements. The provision is designed to stop local authorities overreaching and thereby to protect the public purse.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) asked about scrutiny. The definitions provided by accounting practice will translate into the definitions of scrutiny. He will remember that under the part of the Bill that deals with overview and scrutiny, it can be the contract that is scrutinised rather than the body itself.
	The provisions relate to what I have described as proprietary controls. The financial controls are covered not only by this part of the Bill, but by the Local Government Act 2003, which defines the new prudential borrowing arrangements. I hope that the House has not fallen asleep. These are important matters for local authorities.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23
	 — 
	Trusts

'(1) In this section a "relevant trust" means a trust connected with a local authority.
	(2) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include provision which requires, prohibits or regulates—
	(a) the taking of specified actions by the trustees of a relevant trust;
	(b) the taking of specified actions by a local authority in relation to the trustees of trusts connected with that local authority;
	(c) the taking of specified actions by a member or officer of a local authority who is a trustee of a trust connected with that local authority.
	(3) Provision included in an order by virtue of this section may relate to—
	(a) the trustees of every relevant trust;
	(b) the trustees of relevant trusts of a particular description.
	(4) Where by virtue of this section an order makes provision in relation to the trustees of trusts of a particular description, it may provide for any expression used in identifying that description of trust to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by the order; or
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.
	(5) For the purposes of this section a trust ("T") is "connected with" a local authority at any time if, according to proper practices in force at that time, financial information about T must be included in the local authority's statement of accounts for the financial year in which that time falls.
	(6) In this section the following have the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)—
	"actions";
	"financial year";
	"local authority";
	"specified".'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24
	 — 
	Further provision about orders

'(1) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may make provision requiring an entity, a local authority or trustees to obtain the consent of the appropriate person before taking any particular actions.
	(2) In subsection (1) "the appropriate person" means—
	(a) in relation to an order made by the Secretary of State, the Audit Commission;
	(b) in relation to an order made by the Welsh Ministers, the Auditor General for Wales.
	(3) The provision that may be included in an order by virtue of section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)(4)(a) includes in particular provision—
	(a) requiring a local authority to make arrangements for enabling questions about an entity's activities to be put to members or officers of the authority who are qualifying persons;
	(b) prohibiting a local authority from taking action (including refraining from exercising a right) which would have the result that a person of a specified description becomes a qualifying person;
	(c) requiring a local authority to ensure so far as practicable that entities comply with provisions of the order applicable to them.
	(4) The provision that may be included in an order by virtue of section (Trusts)(2)(b) includes in particular provision—
	(a) requiring a local authority to make arrangements for enabling questions about a trust connected with the authority to be put to members or officers of the authority who are trustees;
	(b) prohibiting a local authority from taking action (including refraining from exercising a right) which would have the result that a person of a specified description becomes a trustee of a trust connected with the authority;
	(c) requiring a local authority to ensure so far as practicable that trustees comply with provisions of the order applicable to them.
	(5) Nothing in subsections (1) to (4) affects the generality of section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)(1) or (4) or (Trusts)(2).
	(6) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision.
	(7) In this section the following have the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities)—
	"actions";
	"entity";
	"entity connected with a local authority";
	"local authority";
	"qualifying person".
	(8) In this section "the Audit Commission" means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25
	 — 
	Exemptions from orders

'(1) The appropriate authority may give a direction exempting—
	(a) a particular entity, or entities of a particular description, or
	(b) the trustees of a particular trust, or of trusts of a particular description,
	from an order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) or specified provisions of such an order.
	(2) A direction under this section may provide for an exemption to have effect—
	(a) for a specified period; or
	(b) subject to specified conditions.
	(3) A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction of the appropriate authority.
	(4) In this section "the appropriate authority" means—
	(a) in relation to an order made by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State;
	(b) in relation to an order made by the Welsh Ministers, the Welsh Ministers.
	(5) In this section—
	"entity" has the same meaning as in section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities);
	"specified" means specified by the direction.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order under this section—
	(a) define an "entity under the control of a local authority" and an "entity jointly controlled by bodies that include a local authority" for the purposes of section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (c. 64);
	(b) define for the purposes of section 80(1)(aa) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) the reference in that provision to "an entity under the control of" the authority mentioned there;
	(c) define, for the purposes of sections 98(8)(d) and 100(1)(a) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65), the references in each of those provisions to—
	(i) "an entity under the control of" the body mentioned there;
	(ii) "an entity subject to the influence of" that body; and
	(iii) "an entity jointly controlled by" that body and one or more other bodies;
	(d) define for the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) the reference in that provision to "an entity under the control of" the authority mentioned there;
	(e) define for the purposes of section 18(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) the references in that provision to—
	(i) "an entity under the control of" and "a trust under the control of" an authority or Executive mentioned there;
	(ii) "an entity subject to the influence of" and "a trust subject to the influence of" such an authority or Executive; and
	(iii) "an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include" and "a trust jointly controlled by bodies that include" such an authority or Executive.
	(2) Any reference in subsection (1) to the purposes of a provision of—
	the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70),
	the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65),
	the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), or
	the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26),
	is a reference to the purposes of that provision as it applies in relation to England.
	(3) An order under this section may provide for any expression used by it to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by the order;
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27
	 — 
	Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales

'(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order under this section—
	(a) define for the purposes of section 80(1)(aa) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) the reference in that provision to "an entity under the control of" the authority mentioned there;
	(b) define, for the purposes of sections 98(8)(d) and 100(1)(a) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65), the references in each of those provisions to—
	(i) "an entity under the control of" the body mentioned there;
	(ii) "an entity subject to the influence of" that body; and
	(iii) "an entity jointly controlled by" that body and one or more other bodies;
	(c) define for the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) the reference in that provision to "an entity under the control of" the authority mentioned there;
	(d) define for the purposes of section 18(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) the references in that provision to—
	(i) "an entity under the control of" and "a trust under the control of" an authority mentioned there;
	(ii) "an entity subject to the influence of" and "a trust subject to the influence of" such an authority; and
	(iii) "an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include" and "a trust jointly controlled by bodies that include" such an authority;
	(e) define "an entity under the control of a local authority" for the purposes of section 48(3) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23).
	(2) Any reference in subsection (1) to the purposes of a provision of—
	the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70),
	the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65),
	the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), or
	the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26),
	is a reference to the purposes of that provision as it applies in relation to Wales.
	(3) An order under this section may provide for any expression used by it to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by the order;
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

'(1) Omit Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42).
	(2) Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities) (other consequential amendments) has effect.
	(3) Subsection (4) applies where by virtue of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (implied power to amend) any subordinate legislation is amended in consequence of the repeal of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42).
	(4) Any provision inserted or substituted by the amendment may provide for an expression used in such provision to have the meaning for the time being given by—
	(a) any document identified by such provision;
	(b) any re-issue of such a document.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36
	 — 
	Schemes for elections

'For the purposes of this Part—
	(a) a council is "subject to a scheme for whole-council elections" if all of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;
	(b) a council is "subject to a scheme for elections by halves" if one-half (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;
	(c) a council is "subject to a scheme for elections by thirds" if one-third (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 37— Resolution for whole-council elections.
	Government new clause 38— Resolution for whole-council elections: requirements.
	Government new clause 39— Resolution for elections by halves.
	Government new clause 40— Resolution for elections by halves: requirements.
	Government new clause 41— Resolution for elections by thirds.
	Government new clause 42— Resolution for elections by thirds: requirements.
	Government new clause 43— Publicity for resolution.
	Government new clause 44— Notice to Electoral Commission.
	Government new clause 45— Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary.
	Government new clause 46— Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme.
	Government new clause 47— Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held.
	Government new clause 48— Order for elections by halves: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections.
	Government new clause 49— Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held.
	Government new clause 50— Order for elections by thirds: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections.
	Government new clause 51— Order for elections by halves or elections by thirds: transitional provision.
	Government new clause 52— Power of Electoral Commission to make incidental etc provision.
	Government new clause 53— Position if Electoral Commission acts under existing powers.
	Government new clause 54— Publicity for order by Electoral Commission.
	Government new clause 55— Power of council to alter years of ordinary elections of parish councillors.
	Government new clause 62— Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations.
	Government amendments Nos. 196 to 209, 258, 211, 212, 219 to 221 and 227.

Phil Woolas: Putting my CIPFA guidance to one side, we come to a highly political matter that was the subject of significant and constructive debate in Committee. It may be helpful to the House if I explain the purpose and effect of the new clauses and amendments and why we have proposed them.
	The effect of the new clauses and amendments would be to allow local authorities that have at any time been subject to a scheme for partial council elections—normally referred to as "thirds", although that is not always the case—but that are subject to a scheme for whole council elections to revert to a scheme for partial council elections. To use the political jargon, if a council has moved from thirds to all outs, can it move back? I know that there are differences in two-tier areas—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), has explained them to me.
	The Government amendments also amend part 2 of the Bill to require local authorities to pass resolutions for changing their schemes for elections by a two-thirds majority. The same figure applies to districts at the moment. In addition, they extend the permitted resolution period during which a metropolitan district council may first resolve to move to a scheme for whole council elections from 31 December 2007 to 31 December 2009. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), who represents such an area, pressed that point in the Committee.
	In Committee, we listened carefully to the concerns expressed by hon. Members from all three parties about the proposal that local authorities that resolve to move to whole council elections should be unable to move back to partial council elections. At the end of an extremely constructive Committee debate, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) withdrew the amendments that would have allowed county councils and London boroughs to move to partial council elections, even though there is no tradition of partial council elections in those areas.
	We believe that if a council has always held whole council elections—that is the pattern of election that the Electoral Commission recommended and demonstrated to be in the interests of electors and effective democratic processes—it would be perverse to give it the option of moving away from those arrangements. However, in Committee we undertook to give further consideration to whether amendments should be made that would allow areas with a tradition of partial council elections to return to that scheme if they thought that whole council elections were not appropriate in their area. I hope that the House will find that the amendments address the concerns that were expressed in Committee, when the issue was subject to extremely constructive scrutiny.
	I hope that I have support in saying that a great deal of experience was brought to the Committee by Members of all parties—people spoke as constituency Members, irrespective of their Government or Opposition roles, and some powerful points were made. The debate has been around for 50 years. I do not want to bore the House with details of my bedtime reading, but I am reading the memoirs of a predecessor in the 1950s, who explained that in 1955-56 the Conservative party had an election commitment to, and a debate in Cabinet on, election by thirds. It wanted to ensure election by thirds in order to secure strong executive leadership on the councils. Fifty years later, that position has been turned around by events but the subject is still debated by elected representatives, both in the House and on councils. It is an important issue, and that is why we considered it in the light of the points made by the Committee. We tabled this group of amendments in that spirit. I am glad to see that, if my reading of the amendment paper is correct, there are no non-Government amendments on the subject, so I hope that our point is accepted.

Michael Fabricant: Has the Minister, in his extensive reading or in the research that his Department does on his behalf, noticed any pattern and found that one particular group of councils goes for thirds, while another chooses all-out elections, or is it completely random?

Phil Woolas: That is an interesting point. The Government's central intention in introducing the measures is to devolve the decision from the Secretary of State to the council. At the moment, the Secretary of State, or Ministers and officials acting on her behalf, take the decision. In my time in office, I have been asked to take decisions on elections in areas of which, in all honesty, I have no personal knowledge, although of course advice is available. We think that that is wrong and we want to devolve that responsibility. We want the safeguard of the two thirds.
	The evidence available is inconclusive. There are many views on why particular decisions are taken. As we debated in Committee, there are those who say that elections by thirds keep the council in touch with the public, keep it on its toes, and make it more responsive. Equally, there are those who say that all-out elections provide for stronger decisions and mean that councils can take better quality decisions in the long run. If we look at the ratings by the Audit Commission and others, we can see that there are cases where there is no relationship between the rating and the electoral cycle. There are also examples of cases in which there is a relationship, and where local and other factors seem to come into play. Indeed, it is partly because there is no decisive evidence, although there is a body of knowledge, that we decided to table the amendments.
	Let me briefly explain the principles behind the amendments. The Government's starting point—the manifesto mentioned this—is the belief that whole council elections create the framework most likely to support and promote the strong and accountable leadership that we need if powers and responsibilities are to be devolved to local councils. There is a relationship between devolution and the responsible holding of power. Whole council elections can strengthen democratic processes by providing clarity to the electorate.
	Secondly, we believe that local authorities should make the decision. That is why the Bill will give them the power to make a resolution to change the electoral cycle if they believe that to be in the best interests of their area. Thirdly, as we stated in the White Paper, we recognise that the pattern of local elections can reflect long-held traditions and be part of the culture of local public life. If a council has been subject to partial council elections since the local government reorganisation in 1974, it will be able to move to whole council elections—and, if it sees fit, it can subsequently return to elections by thirds. I reiterate that the option of moving to partial council elections should not, in our view, be extended to areas where there is no such tradition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan stated in Committee that between electoral cycles
	"there should not be a constant ping-pong".——[ Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 February 2007; c. 211.]
	We therefore propose that any resolution to change the cycle or scheme for elections must be made at a specially convened meeting and be passed by a two- thirds majority of those voting. That will ensure that a significant majority of councillors support the change being made. That is the process that currently applies for district councils that have the option of requesting the Secretary of State to make that change.
	Fifthly, we need to set out when a change of electoral cycles can realistically first be made under the Bill. We propose that if a metropolitan district council chooses to make a change, having obtained a two-thirds majority in support of that choice, the first year in which it can have a whole council election will be 2010. For shire districts, including unitaries, the first year will be 2011. I have set those dates because it would be wrong if the electorate were not aware of what they were voting for. If the move was made during the current electoral cycle, it could be unfair. The new clauses and amendments in the group that we are discussing follow the five principles that I have just outlined.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister's argument is interesting. Would he go further and say that although proposed changes are not set out in the Bill, they really should be in a manifesto? Let us suppose that a council argued for a change from election by thirds to all-out elections, or vice versa. The Minister is saying that the safeguard is that the change will happen in the next electoral cycle. The proposal should therefore really be set out in some form of manifesto, so that people know what they are voting for.

Phil Woolas: Yes, I agree with that. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is partly why I chose the dates that I mentioned. If a party stood for election and won a majority, perhaps not unexpectedly, and then told the electorate that it was moving to all-out elections, that would not be fair. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, and a random sample of opinion among Labour Members, taken in the past few moments, shows that there is consensus among Labour Members, too.

Bob Neill: I very much agree with the Minister's last observations and I suspect that there is consensus on the point that he makes. I am interested in the references to halves. Perhaps it comes of having lived a sheltered life in the London boroughs and the home counties, where elections are either all-out or by thirds, but I am interested to hear whether there is any significant demand for elections by halves, how many local authorities come out for halves, and what place that option holds in the argument. I can see the argument for all-out elections, which the Minister has advanced, and I can see the argument for thirds—that, too, has been advanced, and it is well known to all of us—but election by halves seems an odd hybrid animal. Perhaps it is an historical anomaly. I would be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts. Is it a route that the Government seek to encourage; is it merely included as an option, as a result of their desire to maximise devolution; or would it simply preserve the historical practices in one or two parts of the country?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his lengthy intervention because inspiration arrived during the course of it. I am told that there are seven districts that hold elections by halves.
	The principle that we are trying to put into the Bill—not just in this part, but across the Bill—is that the route by which a decision is taken is the route by which it can be reversed. In cases where election is by halves, that would apply. Furthermore, given his experience in the Greater London Authority, the hon. Gentleman will be more aware than most that the electoral cycle for councils should take into account upper tier and lower tier authorities. In the Bill we are trying to encourage the creation of parish councils. I am not one of those who want huge ballot papers, so I hope that the House will bear with me on that point.
	The new clauses and amendments follow the principles that I have outlined. They also put in place the necessary technical processes to allow the Electoral Commission to review district wards where changes to electoral cycles are being made. In short, the amendments will allow councils to have the flexibility that they need. I commend them to the House.

Robert Syms: There is substantial consensus on the matter. As the Minister rightly said, trying to make a judgment about which is the best system can be inconclusive, to say the least. There are examples of extremely good authorities that are elected by thirds, by halves and by all-out elections. I have always had a preference for all-out elections, because that gives the electorate a manifesto, and a day when it decides who is to run the authority, or perhaps who to kick out, if the council has made a hash of it.
	From the tone of the debate in Committee, it was clear that the Government, possibly because of a manifesto commitment, wanted to go in a particular direction, whereas we wanted authorities to have the option of going into reverse gear if they so wished. I agree with the Minister's remarks about the two thirds. Some cross-party co-operation will probably be necessary under the changed electoral arrangements. In some authorities—Wigan might be one of them—that might not make much difference in terms of political party, but for most authorities a two-thirds majority would require some acquiescence by the minority to change the electoral arrangements and to change back. The new clauses seem to be written in a perfectly sensible manner.
	The Government set out their belief that whole council elections are generally the best route, so they are not giving such councils the opportunity to revert to election by thirds or halves. I accept that. The Government have moved some way to allay the concerns expressed in Committee. It is sensible that the dates are set some way ahead to allow for change. That would allow a political party that wished to campaign on the changed electoral arrangements to put those to the electorate. Broadly speaking, we are happy with the way that the Government are proceeding.

Tom Levitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on responding to the mood of the Committee, especially the mood on the Labour Back Benches during the Committee, where, as a 100 per cent. loyalist, I still felt the urge to be a rebel on these matters. It did not make sense to me that we should be able to move from one form of voting to another, but not the other way round. We are particularly flattered that it has taken no fewer than 40 amendments in the group before us to address our concerns.
	One concern was that the situation in two-tier authorities had not been fully taken into account by the original drafting of the Bill. Derbyshire county has large single-member wards, and no one would argue that there should be anything but all-out elections every four years. However, I have been involved with local authorities at district level that have had all-out elections, and also with authorities that had elections by thirds, and there is something to be said for both systems. The all-out system provides consistency for at least four years, and if there is a mayoral system, the four-year system probably matches that and supports it better. On the other hand, a council that goes out by thirds allows a rolling programme, and non-catastrophic evolution. I use the word "catastrophic" advisedly. In High Peak we had all-out elections and lost nine seats on 3 May. Had we had elections by thirds, the outcome would be the equivalent of losing only three seats, which would not have looked quite so catastrophic.
	That is a good reason why we should have been able to have elections by thirds—but in my book continuity wins out. I have served on a local authority that was elected by thirds—the same authority on which I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Continuity and evolution are better than a possibly catastrophic pendulum swing every four years.
	I have one or two questions to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, bearing in mind that very few councils have ever taken the opportunity that the existing law provides to change from one system to the other. My guess is that most councils are set up in a certain way and stay like that. If he is allowing only those that have once been elected by thirds and are now all-out to revert to thirds, how many councils is he giving that power to? It seems that only the local authorities that are currently all-out but once upon a time had election by thirds can go back. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) raised the question of halves. That was new to me, too. Can my hon. Friend say whether the same would apply in the case of halves? Would those authorities need to have had a different system in the past in order to qualify for movement between all-out elections and elections by part?
	There is a worry that if councils are given a new right to go in the other direction, but only a handful of them would qualify to be considered, it is not much of a right. I am sorry to put my hon. Friend on the spot, but these questions are important. I hope that the 40 amendments will ensure that some councils have the option to move in the other direction, from all-out to halves or thirds, if that is what they choose, subject to the sensible provisos suggested by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for responding to the debate in Committee which, as he said, was all-party and saw the need for a process that could work in either direction. I welcome the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled. Like the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I am disappointed that the provisions are restricted in their application. I shall comment on that in a moment.
	First, however, I want to ask the Minister whether the difference in wording between the rules for halves and the rules for thirds is deliberate and, if so, why. New clause 39(1) states that a non-metropolitan district council in England can qualify, and new clause 41, which relates to election by thirds, allows a district council in England to qualify. In other words, election by halves is restricted to non-metropolitan districts, and the other case appears to apply to metropolitan districts. I would be interested to know whether that is a difference with a deliberate intention, or whether it will be subject to amendment in another place in due course. I favour the widest possible interpretation, so I prefer new clause 41 to new clause 39 in that respect. I look forward to hearing that that is the intention.
	I asked the Library for a note on how many local authorities would be eligible, and it provided me with a list of the councils that had elections by thirds in 1974, which is the qualifying date. According to the Library, there were 114 such shire district councils, but it did not tell me how many of those changed at one time or another away from election by thirds to all-out elections. I hope that the Minister will provide that information—if not now, perhaps separately after the debate.
	Although the concession is generous and the amendments to achieve it are lengthy, my concern is that it will apply to only a small number of local authorities. My disappointment is that the Government have not seen fit to make this a concession that any council could have—although in saying "any council", I accept that, as the Minister said in introducing his amendments, our original wording, which included county councils and other upper-tier bodies, would not have been appropriate. I fully accept that our drafting was deficient in that respect. I want to see the Minister nudge forward a little bit on the possibility of a larger number of district councils being eligible. If he were to tell us in plain terms that there are 100 such councils, maybe I would not feel so concerned, but if, as I suspect, there are only about a dozen, this concession is not as worth while as it seems.
	The Library list of 114 councils that had election by thirds in 1974 includes a number of councils that are now unitary authorities. For example, City of York council was a district council in those days, and it is now a unitary council. It was clearly set up as a unitary authority after 1974, and therefore although it appears to qualify under new clause 41(2)(a), it would apparently be disqualified under subsection (2)(b), which states:
	"if later, the date on which the council was created."
	I want to hear from the Minister whether, if a geographical area once had election by thirds, it still retains the capacity to go through the reversing act, if it wishes, even if its status as a council has changed. I have no information to the effect that City of York council has any intention of doing that, and I am simply using it to illustrate a case that might arise.
	Although we welcome the direction of travel, as we say these days, that the Minister has undertaken, I want him to travel further. If, as I fear, he has hardly opened the front door and got on to the garden path, it will be a major disappointment.

Andrew Gwynne: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Turner) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I was one of the defenders of elections by thirds in Committee, and I am delighted that the Minister has tabled the amendments that we are discussing today.
	I will not rehearse the arguments that I expressed in Committee. There are strong views on both sides. I think that elections by thirds works well in the two local authorities in my constituency, Tameside and Stockport. Tameside has four stars and "improving strongly" status under the strong leadership of Councillor Roy Oldham CBE.
	The Minister has delighted me with these amendments. I have always rated him as an effective operator on the political field, and as a result he is a great Minister for Local Government. In Committee, he made great play of his devolutionary desires, which he has actually demonstrated. He has proved to be a listening Minister, too, because there was consensus across the Committee on this issue.
	It is absolutely right to introduce the two-thirds majority safeguard to ensure that the powers are not abused by local authorities. In a council such as Tameside, where the controlling group has a two-thirds majority, the safeguard would not make much of a difference, but I realise that it would in most local authorities.
	The Minister has been absolutely generous in respect of opportunities to move back. After a full council cycle, if a council resolves at a special meeting by a two-thirds majority to move back, it will be permitted to do so. That is much more generous than the provisions proposed by me, my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan and for High Peak and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). We thought that it would be more reasonable to have two cycles to allow the new system to bed down; two cycles would result in a period of eight years and three cycles would result in a period of 12 years. If a local authority sees that approach as a failure, the opportunity to move sooner is welcome.
	I was going to raise the precise point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about non-metropolitan districts established under the Local Government Act 1972, which came into force on 1 April 1974, that have subsequently become unitary authorities. When those districts were non-metropolitan shire districts in a two-tier system, many of them were elected according to elections by thirds. On becoming unitary authorities, which gave them a new status and a new creation date, because they technically became new local authorities on the date on which the unitaries were created, many of them moved to all-out elections. If such local authorities wanted to elect by thirds, it would be wrong to prevent them from doing so. Like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I look forward to the Minister's response.

Neil Turner: I, too, congratulate the Minister on introducing this excellent group of amendments in response to the constructive cross-party debate in Committee.
	We do not need to rehearse the arguments—it is finely balanced whether elections should be all out or whether they should be by thirds—because it is not really for us in this Chamber to make that decision, which should be made by councils and their local communities. What we need to do is to give councils and their local communities that opportunity, and I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendments, which will allow local authorities to take that decision.
	I agree with the Minister that the two-thirds issue is important. I do not think that it is right that a local authority with a majority of 50 per cent. plus one should take that decision, because the issue would then become party political rather than a decision being made for the whole of the community. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has suggested that there is a two-thirds majority on Wigan council, but we are not quite there yet; we had one gain last year and three gains this year, so a couple more gains next year will get us to that position. If we want to make changes, however, as a four-star authority we will put community consultation to the fore.
	I join my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in saying that the measure appears to be slightly limited. The exclusion of the London boroughs is not a logical step. If a London borough wants to move from all-out elections to one-third elections, I cannot see why it should not have the opportunity to do so. It seems illogical to allow that in metropolitan districts but not in London boroughs. If we were truly devolutionary, it would be open to all local authorities to take that decision, in line with the wishes of their communities. I hope that the Minister will take that point back to the Department and have further discussions with his colleagues—perhaps he will introduce further amendments in the Lords. Nevertheless, the provision is a move forward, and I congratulate the Minister on it.

Bob Neill: I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments, but the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) has stung me into action. I am sorry to disagree with his final point—I had thought that this year our only disagreements would relate to promotion and relegation, and I commiserate with him on the circumstances in which he finds himself in that regard.

Neil Turner: rose—

Bob Neill: That does not mean that I am going to volunteer, on behalf of West Ham United, to make any change in our current situation.
	I shall be careful not to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall now move on. I urge the Minister to be cautious about the issue raised in relation to London—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was merely unclear as to which sport the hon. Gentleman was referring to.

Bob Neill: You must have been to Upton Park on one of our bad days, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and experienced similar confusion.
	I urge a note of caution with regard to London. I understand the devolutionary sentiment behind the comments of the hon. Member for Wigan, but one should balance that with the point made by the Minister, whose thinking I commend in this respect. Experience in the Greater London authority has shown the value of fitting elections into the cycle. The metropolitan districts are different because there is, in effect, a top-tier authority in the form of the GLA. A system that allows for some gap between the two tiers is generally well regarded in London.

Andrew Gwynne: It is entirely for the London boroughs to decide on this matter. However, before 1986 the metropolitan counties outside London had elections by thirds to the metropolitan districts, and in the fourth year, which is now the fallow year, elections to the metropolitan county councils such as Greater Manchester council. The London model could fit with election by thirds.

Bob Neill: Except for this difference: the metropolitan counties were abolished and have not been reinstated, so there is now a single-tier authority and a year off. That also happens in the case of one or two unitaries that were formerly metropolitan counties. The difference in London is that it is generally regarded as convenient to have the all-out election for the Mayor and the assembly, and then to have an all-out election for the boroughs halfway through the electoral cycle. I hope that the Minister will not consider any change in relation to London without considering the views of those in London local government. London has a unique local government structure and different considerations should therefore apply.

Michael Fabricant: This argument is interesting to me, because I do not come from a local government background. Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why, given the fallow year that has been mentioned, the option of quarters was not discussed? Perhaps the Minister could explain that when he winds up. If the argument is that it is helpful to have elections every year, why have elections for three years and then in a final, fourth year have no election at all? Given that halves are an option used by seven district councils, why not have the option of quarters too?

Bob Neill: I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that interesting point, which had not occurred to me before. I can see an argument for it, although I am not aware that it has ever received much support among electors or the local government community. I hope that he will forgive me if I appear not to do justice to his intervention by saying that I can only leave it at that and return to my point about London, and the desire to have something that works well in the London context. I am not aware that any local authority or significant group of opinion in London would wish for a change in our current electoral arrangements.

Phil Woolas: If members of the press or the public were ever to doubt that Members of Parliament know what they are talking about, they should read the  Hansard record of the debate on these new clauses. I am tempted to say that the reason why we did not consider the option of quarters was to give the poor electorate a year off— [ Interruption . ] And the canvassers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) says. The real reason is traditional and historical. Areas had two tiers; in our area of Greater Manchester, the fallow year was for the upper tier. To meet the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), we would have to reconsider the number of councillors per ward and move to four, or two or one. We could do that, but I do not think that he would want us to.

Andrew Stunell: As the Minister and I know, on the past three occasions our fallow year in Greater Manchester has been occupied with a general election, so we are never short of an election in our area.

Phil Woolas: That is a point often made to me by the cross-party leaders of the 10 authorities in Greater Manchester. I suspect that the results would be better for us in both sets of elections were that not the case—but I will not be tempted down that road.
	I am grateful to hon. Members for their response to the amendments, and will deal briefly with the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned our manifesto commitment. For the record, the manifesto required the Government to look at the Electoral Commission's proposals on all-out elections. We have done that, so we have fulfilled the commitment. The manifesto did not commit the Government to moving to all-out elections, but gave that as a preference. Our debate has reflected that.
	The hon. Member for Poole welcomed the requirement for a two-thirds majority, which provides more of a guarantee that a resolution would not be used in a partisan way, or by a small number of councils for tactical reasons. That principle is already enshrined, because in districts that have the power to request the Secretary of State to move to all-out elections, the resolution requires a two-thirds majority in the council. The hon. Gentleman mentioned whole council decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan put his finger on the main point, which is that this section of the Bill allows local authorities to decide. The research that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) did in the Library and elsewhere teaches us something, although circumstances will change in future, given that councils know that decisions are in their own hands and are not subject to the decision of the Secretary of State, who may or may not agree with the resolution.

Tom Levitt: Is my hon. Friend saying that under the amendments, a council that has always had all-out elections has the right to choose to go to election by thirds? If not, such a council does not have the right to choose. My impression was that the amendments would give a council the right to move to thirds only if it had had that system at some time in the past.

Phil Woolas: That is correct; I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position. I am on the front path, not out on the street, to use the analogy made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.

Tom Levitt: So why does my hon. Friend make that distinction between the two categories of council?

Phil Woolas: Because I have not been asked to until now. I am reflecting the debate in Committee. My hon. Friend should look back on the five principles that I mentioned, one of which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) disagreed with. This might seem surprising coming from the Labour Benches, but tradition is important in this area. It is not desirable to create turbulence in the system, but at the same time we should move in a generally devolutionary direction. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) is trying to move the debate forward. I have tried to ensure that the Government have not been too restrictive in imposing all-out elections, so as to allow for a change in the direction of travel, but I cannot, as yet, go as far as he is asking. If he gives me a chance to list the figures, he will get some satisfaction.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove could be described in this instance, if not outside this debate, as a political anorak. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense. I congratulate him on going to the Library to ask the question that he did, and I am interested to hear that he did not get a satisfactory answer. In 2002, six authorities moved to election by halves—Cheltenham, Fareham, Gosport, Hastings, Nuneaton and Bedworth, and Oxford. Several councils have moved from whole council elections to election by thirds. They include Warrington in 1997, Purbeck in 1999, Castle Point in 2003, North-East Lincolnshire in 2003, and Plymouth in 2003. Councils that have moved from election by thirds to whole council elections include Medway in 1997, Broadland in 2007 and Eastbourne in 2007. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is especially interested in Eastbourne.
	Hon. Members asked about the position in York. For the purposes of the Bill, it is a non-metropolitan district. It is, of course, a unitary authority, so the answer to the question about York is yes. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked about halves and metropolitan districts. No metropolitan districts elect on the basis of halves; they have no tradition of that. Seven non-metropolitan districts work on the basis of halves, and could move back to a previous system. Indeed, I have just provided a list of them. All metropolitans could go back to a previous system if they first choose to move to whole council elections. If any of the 81 districts or 19 unitaries that currently elect by thirds or the seven district councils that work on the basis of halves moved to whole council elections, they could move back to thirds or halves, as the case may be.
	Any of the 150 district councils that currently hold whole council elections but previously elected by thirds could move back. Since 1997, three district councils have moved to whole council elections; they could therefore move back. I hope that that is as clear as possible.

Tom Levitt: rose—

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend is going to push me on that point.

Tom Levitt: I am about to sound a little ridiculous. Does my hon. Friend genuinely suggest that we have tabled 40 amendments simply to allow three councils to move back to election by thirds?

Phil Woolas: No. I shall not repeat myself, but a reading of  Hansard will show that that is not the case. We are essentially trying to allow councils that have moved to move back, but not necessarily those that moved in the last period. Where there is a tradition, councils can revert to it. I am essentially excluding London and counties. The reason for that is interesting. It is partly because there is no tradition and partly because the consultation did not request the inclusion of London and counties.

Peter Soulsby: Let us be clear. Is the Minister saying that unitary authorities that were formerly metropolitan district authorities can revert to elections by thirds if they held such elections at some point since the 1973-74 reorganisation?

Phil Woolas: Yes. That is precisely my point.
	An inevitable consequence of devolution is different patterns in different areas. As a country and a body politic, we need to get used to that and welcome it.

Andrew Stunell: I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister approaches the matter. He appeared to be surprised by the point that the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) made about authorities that had always held all-out elections, and the fact that the Bill is not giving them the opportunity to move to thirds. The Minister expressed surprise that he had not been asked about that previously. Let me remind him that the amendment that we tabled in Committee included those councils, too.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is right and I was wrong. I intended to refer to the pre-consultation. He thanked me for my approach. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), whose pressure and lobbying, along with that of other hon. Friends, led to the amendments. However grateful the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts)—from the Whips Office—is not. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the new clause.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time , and added to the Bill.

New Clause 37
	 — 
	Resolution for whole-council elections

'(1) A district council in England that is subject to a scheme for elections by halves or by thirds may resolve that it is to be subject instead to the scheme for whole-council elections under section 33.
	(2) A resolution under this section is referred to in this Part as a "resolution for whole-council elections".'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38
	 — 
	Resolution for whole-council elections: requirements

'(1) A council must comply with this section in passing a resolution for whole-council elections.
	(2) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.
	(3) The resolution must be passed—
	(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and
	(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting on it.
	(4) The council must pass the resolution in a permitted resolution period.
	(5) In this section "permitted resolution period" means—
	(a) in relation to a metropolitan district council—
	(i) the period ending with 31 December 2009, or
	(ii) the period in 2013, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December;
	(b) in relation to a non-metropolitan district council—
	(i) the period ending with 31 December 2010, or
	(ii) the period in 2014, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution period is to end later than the day determined in accordance with subsection (5).'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39
	 — 
	Resolution for elections by halves

'(1) A non-metropolitan district council in England that—
	(a) was formerly subject to a scheme for elections by halves, but
	(b) is for the time being subject to a scheme for whole-council elections, may resolve that it is to revert to being subject to a scheme for elections by halves.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, a council that is subject to a scheme for whole-council elections was "formerly subject" to a scheme for elections by halves if it was subject to such a scheme at any time in the period beginning with—
	(a) 1 April 1974, or
	(b) if later, the date on which the council was created.
	(3) A resolution under this section is referred to in this Part as a "resolution for elections by halves".'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40
	 — 
	Resolution for elections by halves: requirements

'(1) A council must comply with this section in passing a resolution for elections by halves.
	(2) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.
	(3) The resolution must be passed—
	(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and
	(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting on it.
	(4) The council must pass the resolution in a permitted resolution period.
	(5) In this section "permitted resolution period" means the period in 2008, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution period is to end later than the day determined in accordance with subsection (5).'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41
	 — 
	Resolution for elections by thirds

'(1) A district council in England that—
	(a) was formerly subject to a scheme for elections by thirds, but
	(b) is for the time being subject to a scheme for whole-council elections,
	may resolve that it is to revert to being subject to a scheme for elections by thirds.
	(2) For the purposes of this section, a council that is subject to a scheme for whole-council elections was "formerly subject" to a scheme for elections by thirds if it was subject to such a scheme at any time in the period beginning with—
	(a) 1 April 1974, or
	(b) if later, the date on which the council was created.
	(3) A resolution under this section is referred to in this Part as a "resolution for elections by thirds".'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 42
	 — 
	Resolution for elections by thirds: requirements

'(1) A council must comply with this section in passing a resolution for elections by thirds.
	(2) The council must not pass the resolution unless it has taken reasonable steps to consult such persons as it thinks appropriate on the proposed change.
	(3) The resolution must be passed—
	(a) at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and
	(b) by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting on it.
	(4) The council must pass the resolution in a permitted resolution period.
	(5) In this section "permitted resolution period" means—
	(a) in relation to a metropolitan district council: the period in 2011, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December;
	(b) in relation to a non-metropolitan district council: the period in 2008, or in any fourth year afterwards, that starts with 1 October and ends with 31 December.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a permitted resolution period is to end later than the day determined in accordance with subsection (5).'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 43
	 — 
	Publicity for resolution

'(1) A council must comply with this section as soon as practicable after passing a resolution for elections by halves or a resolution for elections by thirds.
	(2) The council must produce an explanatory document.
	(3) The council must make the explanatory document—
	(a) available for public inspection at the council's principal office at all reasonable times, and
	(b) available to the public by such other means as the council thinks appropriate.
	(4) The council must publicise these matters—
	(a) that the council has resolved to become subject to the new electoral scheme;
	(b) that the Electoral Commission is to make provision by order about the operation of, and transition to, the new electoral scheme;
	(c) how the explanatory document is available in accordance with subsection (3);
	(d) the address of the council's principal office.
	(5) It is for the council to decide how these matters are to be publicised.
	(6) An explanatory document is a document which sets out details of the new electoral scheme (so far as the details are known at the time the document is prepared).'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44
	 — 
	Notice to Electoral Commission

'(1) A council must comply with this section as soon as practicable after passing a resolution for elections by halves or a resolution for elections by thirds.
	(2) The council must give the Electoral Commission notice that it has passed the resolution.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45
	 — 
	Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary

'(1) This section applies if the Electoral Commission receive notice under section (Notice to Electoral Commission) that a council has passed a resolution for elections by halves or a resolution for elections by thirds.
	(2) As soon as practicable after receiving the notice, the Commission must consider whether to exercise their power under section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) to direct the Boundary Committee to conduct a review of the district in question (or any part of it).
	(3) As soon as practicable after deciding whether or not to direct the Boundary Committee to conduct an electoral review, the Commission must give the council notice of the decision.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46
	 — 
	Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme

'(1) Where the Electoral Commission receive notice under section (Notice to Electoral Commission) that a council has passed a resolution, they must—
	(a) in the case of a resolution for elections by halves, make an order for elections by halves in relation to the council (see sections (Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held) and (Order for elections by halves: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections));
	(b) in the case of a resolution for elections by thirds, make an order for elections by thirds in relation to the council (see sections (Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held) and (Order for elections by thirds: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections)).
	(2) But the Commission must not make the order—
	(a) before they have decided whether or not to give the Boundary Committee a direction to conduct an electoral review (see section (Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary)(2)), or
	(b) if they give such a direction, before the Boundary Committee have concluded the review.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47
	 — 
	Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held

'(1) An order for elections by halves in relation to a council must secure that the ordinary elections of councillors of the council are held in years determined in accordance with this section.
	(2) Ordinary elections of the councillors of the council are to be held in—
	(a) the first relevant year after the year in which the Electoral Commission makes the order, and
	(b) each subsequent year for elections by halves.
	(3) In this section—
	"relevant year" means 2011 and every fourth year afterwards;
	"year for elections by halves" means 2012 and every second year afterwards.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48
	 — 
	Order for elections by halves: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections

'(1) An order for elections by halves in relation to a council must make provision for the election and retirement of councillors in accordance with this section.
	(2) In the case of the ordinary elections held in the year determined in accordance with section (Order for elections by halves: years in which elections are to be held)(2)(a)—
	(a) all of the councillors are to be elected;
	(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—
	(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and
	(ii) all of the sitting councillors are to retire.
	(3) In the case of ordinary elections held subsequently—
	(a) one half (or as nearly as may be) of the councillors are to be elected;
	(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—
	(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and
	(ii) the specified sitting councillors are to retire.
	(4) The order must include provision for identifying which councillors are to retire in each year in which ordinary elections are to be held (other than the first), including provision for identifying—
	(a) the wards affected;
	(b) the councillors affected within particular wards.
	(5) In this section "specified sitting councillors", in relation to ordinary elections, means the sitting councillors who are to retire in the year of those elections by virtue of the order.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 49
	 — 
	Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held

'(1) An order for elections by thirds in relation to a council must secure that the ordinary elections of councillors of the council are held in years determined in accordance with this section.
	(2) Ordinary elections of the councillors of the council are to be held in—
	(a) the first relevant year after the year in which the Electoral Commission makes the order, and
	(b) each subsequent year, unless it is a fallow year.
	(3) In this section—
	"fallow year" means 2013 and every fourth year afterwards;
	"relevant year" means—
	(c) in relation to a metropolitan district council: 2014 and every fourth year afterwards;(d) in relation to a non-metropolitan district council: 2011 and every fourth year afterwards.'— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50
	 — 
	Order for elections by thirds: councillors to be elected at ordinary elections

'(1) An order for elections by thirds in relation to a council must make provision for the election and retirement of councillors in accordance with this section.
	(2) In the case of the ordinary elections held in the year determined in accordance with section (Order for elections by thirds: years in which elections are to be held)(2)(a)—
	(a) all of the councillors are to be elected;
	(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—
	(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and
	(ii) all of the sitting councillors are to retire.
	(3) In the case of ordinary elections held subsequently—
	(a) one third (or as nearly as may be) of the councillors are to be elected;
	(b) on the fourth day after the elections are held—
	(i) the councillors elected in those elections are to come into office, and
	(ii) the specified sitting councillors are to retire.
	(4) The order must include provision for identifying which councillors are to retire in each year in which ordinary elections are to be held (other than the first), including provision for identifying—
	(a) the wards affected;
	(b) the councillors affected within particular wards.
	(5) In this section "specified sitting councillors", in relation to ordinary elections, means the sitting councillors who are to retire in the year of those elections by virtue of the order.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 51
	 — 
	Order for elections by halves or elections by thirds: transitional provision

'(1) An order under section (Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme) (order for elections by halves or for elections by thirds) may include provision about the transition to the council's new electoral scheme.
	(2) Provision made by virtue of this section may, in particular, include provision for the retirement of some councillors after their initial election at times different from those otherwise applying, and for identifying which of them are so to retire.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 52
	 — 
	Power of Electoral Commission to make incidental etc provision

'The Commission may by order make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision in connection with provision made by order under section (Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme) (order for elections by halves or for elections by thirds).'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 53
	 — 
	Position if Electoral Commission acts under existing powers

'In a case in which—
	(a) the Commission give the Boundary Committee a direction to conduct an electoral review (see section (Electoral Commission to consider whether electoral review is necessary)(2)), and
	(b) in response to that request the Boundary Committee make recommendations to the Commission for electoral changes,
	nothing in this Part requires the Commission to make any provision in relation to matters dealt with, or to be dealt with, by the Commission in an order under section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) giving effect to those recommendations.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 54
	 — 
	Publicity for order by Electoral Commission

'(1) A council must comply with this section as soon as practicable after the Electoral Commission have made an order under section (Electoral Commission to make order for new electoral scheme) (order for elections by halves or for elections by thirds) in relation to it.
	(2) The council must produce an explanatory document.
	(3) The council must make the explanatory document—
	(a) available for public inspection at the council's principal office at all reasonable times, and
	(b) available to the public by such other means as the council thinks appropriate.
	(4) The council must publicise these matters—
	(a) that the council has become subject to the new electoral scheme;
	(b) how the explanatory document is available in accordance with subsection (3);
	(c) the address of the council's principal office.
	(5) It is for the council to decide how these matters are to be publicised.
	(6) An explanatory document is a document which sets out details of the new electoral scheme.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 55
	 — 
	Power of council to alter years of ordinary elections of parish councillors

'(1) This section applies if a council passes a resolution under this Part.
	(2) The council may by order make provision that changes the years in which the ordinary elections of parish councillors for any parish situated in the council's area are to be held.
	(3) The power may only be exercised so as to secure that those elections are to be held in years in which ordinary elections of district councillors for a ward in which any part of the parish is situated are to be held.
	(4) The order may include transitional provision—
	(a) for the retirement of existing parish councillors at times different from those otherwise applying;
	(b) for the retirement of some parish councillors after their initial election after the order comes into force at times different from those otherwise applying.'.— [Mr. Woolas.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 56
	 — 
	Terms of reference of review

'(1) The terms of reference of a community governance review are the terms on which the review is to be undertaken.
	(2) The terms of reference of a community governance review must specify the area under review.
	(3) Sections (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) and (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) make further provision about the terms of reference of community governance reviews.
	(4) Subject to subsection (2), and sections (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) and (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition), it is for a principal council—
	(a) to decide the terms of reference of any community governance review which the council is to undertake; and
	(b) to decide what modifications (if any) to make to terms of reference.
	(5) As soon as practicable after deciding terms of reference, the principal council must publish the terms.
	(6) As soon as practicable after modifying terms of reference, the principal council must publish the modified terms.'.— [Angela E. Smith.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Angela Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 57— Council's power to undertake review.
	Government new clause 58— No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition.
	Government new clause 59— Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition.
	Government new clause 60— Power to respond to petition.
	New clause 63— Parish councils: power to issue guarantees—
	'(1) A parish council may make and issue a guarantee for a sum, incidental to its support for an activity which is within its powers under this or any other Act.
	(2) A guarantee under subsection (1) may be made—
	(a) in respect of membership of a company incorporated under the Companies Act;
	(b) in respect of membership of an association of local authorities; or
	(c) to a voluntary organisation operating in its area.
	(3) In exercising the power to make a guarantee under subsection (1), the council must have regard for any limit on the maximum sum that may be guaranteed that the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.'.
	Government amendment No. 90.
	Amendment No. 164, in clause 57 page 43, line 37, leave out 'an eligible' and insert 'a'.
	Amendment No. 165, page 44, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment No. 166, in clause 58 page 44, line 8, leave out 'an eligible' and insert 'a'.
	Amendment No. 167, in page 44, line 13, leave out 'an eligible' and insert 'a'.
	Amendment No. 168, in page 44, line 14, leave out 'an eligible' and insert 'a'.
	Government amendments Nos. 228 to 233.
	Government amendment No. 91.
	Government amendments Nos. 234 to 245.
	Amendment No. 169, in clause 78 page 54, line 6, at end insert 'or'.
	Amendment No. 170, in page 54, line 8, leave out from 'councils' to end of line 9.
	Government amendments Nos. 246 and 247.

Angela Smith: The new clause and the associated amendments provide clarity about handling community governance petitions and reviews generally. In future, the Secretary of State will have no role in decisions about the creation, abolition or modification of parish councils. Those will be truly local decisions, as they should be.
	The Bill provides for local people to petition their local authority to conduct a community governance review. When a council receives a valid petition, it must conduct a review except in the following circumstance: when a petition is received within two years of the receipt of an earlier petition that related to the whole or a significant part of the same area as the recent petition. In such a case, the council need not treat the petition as valid. However, even in those circumstances, a council may treat the later petition as valid and conduct a review in relation to it, if it chooses.
	In contrast, when the principal council currently initiates a community governance review, it has no power to treat a petition received while it is undertaking the review or following the conclusion that a review is invalid. That inconsistency should be corrected. Accordingly, we want to give the principal council the flexibility to choose whether to conduct a review when a petition is received within two years of the conclusion of a review of the whole or a significant part of the petition area.
	The flexibility is necessary because we want to avoid a position whereby a local authority conducts a community governance review, recommends the creation of a parish council but, the following day, receives another petition requiring it to conduct another review of the same area. Providing a two-year discretionary period will allow authorities to be secure in the knowledge that they will not be required to conduct a review of the same area immediately after the completion of the initial review, but that they have the flexibility to do so if they choose.
	I hope that I have convinced the House of the merits of ensuring that the community governance review processes are consistent. The new clauses and amendments will deliver that. We have also tabled several technical amendments. I ask the House to accept the new clause to ensure that the devolved community governance review process works effectively.

Robert Syms: First, I broadly welcome the thrust of the Government's actions, which are to devolve power to parish and town councils. I suspect that, when the power is implemented, local authorities will conduct a review of the authorities in their area, especially if they are brave. I remember that, as a county councillor, I had approximately 15 parishes in my county council ward. Some of our areas—I think especially of Wiltshire—have hundreds of parish councils. Many have strong links but, because of the passage of time, many villages have died out since the parishes were instigated. There will, therefore, be a good argument for a review.
	I shall outline my only concerns about the regulations. There is a duty on local authorities to respond to a petition within the terms that the Minister set out. It is, effectively, after two years, but I believe that that is not long enough. Two years is not a great length of time for reviewing all the parishes in an area. Some parishes meet only annually and might have had two or three meetings between the time of the review and the time someone brings forward a petition to change the arrangements yet again.
	I suspect that petitions are most likely when a town has expanded and a new estate finds itself in a parish but wants to belong to the town to which it is appended. Even over a period of two or three years, one could easily foresee substantial change in house building as strategic planning takes place and planning permissions are granted, so two years is much too quick. My concern is that the local authority will always have to undertake a review or respond to a particularly vociferous group that is regularly raising petitions. In those circumstances, a longer term of more than two years—perhaps five or 10 years—would be more sensible. Nothing changes substantially, except perhaps where a town is growing and a new estate is expanding into a parish adjacent to a new town. The Government are too generous in allowing these petitions, which may well cause a problem for some authorities.
	Is a petition time limited? Clause 60(3) stipulates that if the area has
	"fewer than 500 local government electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50 per cent. of the electors".
	Various requirements and thresholds are set out for a community governance petition, but I did wonder whether a petition would be time limited. Could a petition last three, four, five or six years, eventually reaching a point that triggers a response from the council? If so, that would be wrong. If someone is to gain a significant amount of support for a change in the parish arrangements, there should be a time frame within which they should have to raise the petition. Otherwise, someone could raise petitions over a much longer period.
	If an authority is having to deal with a petition of 2,000 names, the council concerned should at least look into the number of names on it to establish before undertaking a community governance review whether they are fairly current. Presumably, under the clause, they would have to be local government electors, so to qualify, the petition should include an electoral number or an address against the names. Are we talking about the current electoral position? In other words, if someone wants to raise a petition for a community governance review, will they have to use the current year's electoral register in order that people qualify?
	The provisions are still not clear, so the Government should provide some reassurances about how petitions will be raised. If we are placing a duty on a local authority, which may involve a cost to that authority, it is perfectly proper that a petition should be raised quickly in the appropriate manner and responded to accordingly. The petition should be time limited. Two years is far too short a period for the council to respond. It should be rather longer; otherwise, vociferous groups could be rushing around to raise petitions in order to change arrangements, causing all sorts of difficulties for local authorities, which have a duty under the Bill to respond.

David Drew: I declare an interest immediately as a town councillor of some 20 years' standing, although I do not intend to talk about all my experiences. I want to put on record my congratulations to the Government on pressing forward with the advancement of parish and town councils. It is a long overdue change and I hope that urban areas in Britain will realise the benefits of truly local councils.
	I want to raise one issue that has always concerned me, which I am still a bit unclear about, and I hope that the Minister will put me straight when she responds. Talking about a principal council implies that there is such a thing, but I am still unclear where the authority lies in three-tier arrangements, where there are parish and town councils and a county and a district council. It is not uncommon to have parish and town councils that are popular with another layer of government but unpopular with the third layer of government. In my county of Gloucestershire, the county council has always been reasonably favourable towards parish and town councils, but that sentiment has not always been shared by all district, city or, indeed, borough councils.
	It is a nice notion that a petition will gain universal support among the hierarchy of those other councils, but I can envisage one layer encouraging a petition only for it to be shot down by another layer. I therefore hope that the Minister can clarify exactly what is meant when we talk about a principal council. Where there is conflict, the new clauses seem to clarify the situation, but will there be a clear outcome so that rather than seeing a battle within local government, we get what we all want: proper representation at the most appropriate level, which to my mind is the most local level.

David Heath: I rise to speak to my new clause 63, which deals with the power to issue guarantees in respect of parish councils. I preface my remarks by echoing what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, as it is, indeed, welcome that the Government recognise the value of parish councils. I was lucky enough a little while ago to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject of parish councils and the Minister for Local Government replied to it, making clear his personal support for them. It was perhaps one of our more discursive Adjournment debates, lasting several hours, and it provided a very good opportunity to discuss the powers of parish councils.
	My new clause deals with a much narrower issue. I raised the matter on 22 January on Second Reading of what is charmingly abbreviated in  Hansard as the "Local Government in Health" Bill. I hope that we are talking about local government in health rather than otherwise. I raised a point that had been brought to my attention by the Somerset Association of Local Councils about the power to issue a guarantee. The Secretary of State, responding to my intervention, said:
	"The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that we are actively considering with local parishes. We are seeking to find a way forward, but I shall certainly correspond with him to see whether we can address the problem."—[ Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1151.]
	I was rather pleased with that reply, as it sounded as if there was a possibility of making progress, but I have to say—I am not being over-critical of the Department—that I have not received any such correspondence from the Secretary of State or other Ministers since. According to my interlocutors in local councils, nor are the National Association of Local Councils or the Society of Local Council Clerks aware of having had such discussions since that intervention as we had hoped might take place on this specific issue.
	I looked into the matter in more depth subsequently and noticed that a similar issue was discussed—though not in the same terms—in relation to local government legislation in the other place on 16 July 2003. Lord Hanningfield—not in my party, but a man I well know as leader of the Conservative group on the Association of County Councils when I was the leader of the Liberal Democrat group—raised a broadly similar issue in that debate. He was told in due course by the Minister that the matter was under review, and that active discussions would take place to find a solution. I am not waiting with bated breath for a response from the Government.
	I want briefly to say what new clause 63 is about. There is an anomaly at the moment, in that principal councils—however defined, as the hon. Member for Stroud said—have the power to enter into a guarantee. They may do so under the terms of the Local Government Act 2000 and their power to promote well-being. Clause 57 of the Bill provides parish councils with the power to promote well-being, but restricts that to quality councils, as defined by the Minister, rather than extending it to all parish councils.
	I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not mention his own amendments in this group. I had expected him at least to refer to them, so that I would be able to support them. Those proposals would extend the power to promote well-being to all parish councils, rather than just to the chosen few that have passed the test applied by the Secretary of State. The absence of such a measure creates a difficulty. If a parish council did not have the power to promote well-being, on which it would rely in order to enter into a guarantee, it would become subject to the court judgments made in respect of guarantees made before the 2000 Act, particularly London borough of Sutton  v. Morgan Grenfell, which was based on the Credit Suisse case against Allerdale borough council in 1994. Both cases found that a guarantee given by a local authority was unenforceable in the absence of the power given in the 2000 Act. That is why I have tabled my new clause. Without the power to issue a guarantee, a parish council cannot participate in the joint arrangements that now often involve a company that is limited by guarantee. It cannot be a full participatory member of such arrangements.
	Parish councils take many forms in this country, ranging from the very small ones with small budgets, which are unlikely to enter into such agreements, to the substantial town councils or even city councils. I can think of two examples in Somerset: Frome town council is a substantial council with considerable assets and a reasonable-sized budget, and Wells city council, which has all the trappings of city government but is still a parish council because Wells is a very small city in the context of this country. They are unable to enter into the kind of arrangements that other councils have.
	My new clause would do three things in respect of the ability to issue a guarantee. It would enable a parish council to enter into
	"membership of a company incorporated under the Companies Act",
	in other words, to enter into one of the associations of councils—perhaps a regeneration body, or a citizens advice bureau consortium or other non-governmental organisation consortium—that are now often incorporated as companies limited by guarantee. It would enable it to do that as an equal partner—a voting partner—which it clearly ought to be able to do if it is providing funding to the partnership or another body.
	The new clause would also regularise the position of associations of local authorities, removing the strange position of having an unincorporated body of incorporated councils. That anomaly needs to be corrected. The third effect would be to enable parish councils to give the kind of small guarantees that are clearly in the interest of the local area. Examples include the underwriting of a small event such as the village fete, or of a body such as the cricket club or other sporting club within the parish council area. Those are small guarantees involving limited liability for the parish, but at the moment parish councils cannot legally enter into any such guarantee arrangements, because to do so would be ultra vires.
	In anticipating the concerns that the Minister might have about these proposals, I have also incorporated a qualification that the Secretary of State may limit the maximum sum to be guaranteed. Indeed, if the measure were accepted, I envisage different limits for different sizes of council, based either on the council's budget or on a sum per elector in the council area. I share the possible concern of the Minister that there might be occasions on which a small council might hopelessly overreach itself in giving financial guarantees and find itself in significant difficulties. Although I trust parish councils to make appropriate financial decisions, I would have no problem with limiting those guarantees.
	It is now time to correct this anomaly and to ensure that all parish councils—not just those that pass the threshold test that the Minister has in mind—have the power to enter into guarantee arrangements. My colleague in local government in Somerset, Mr. Peter Lacey of the Somerset Association of Local Councils, followed his comments to me on this proposal with a personal observation, which I hope he will not mind my sharing with the House. He said:
	"I do not want to retire before this quite reasonable power is given to my members."
	As I want Peter to be able to retire satisfied that he has done his bit and that I have done mine on behalf of the membership in Somerset, may I ask the Minister to accept my new clause now? If she cannot do that, I do not propose to divide the House on the issue, because it is not the sort of material on which we should be dividing the House, but will she at least give me an assurance that there will be genuine progress on the matter, and that a new clause or an amendment will be tabled in another place to correct this minor yet important anomaly for the parish councils of this country?

Bob Neill: We discussed the question of parish councils in London in some detail in Committee. Without repeating those arguments, I want to stress that the misgivings expressed by the representative body of the London boroughs, London Councils, still remain. We understand the devolutionary sentiment that, in principle, lies behind the measures, but it remains an issue that there does not appear to be any significant demand in London for parish councils. The proposal runs the risk of offending the tradition and turbulence tests set by the Minister for Local Government. If either of those tests were applied, we would not be going down this route in London.
	I have also endeavoured to answer the Pratt's Bottom question, and made a point of visiting that part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). The general consensus there was that the principal concerns about a parish council were whether it would cost any more, and whether Ken Livingstone would have anything to do with it. Such prospects did not elicit an enthusiastic response. I do not think that any evidence has been forthcoming apart from what we heard earlier in regard to a great upsurge in the demand for parish councils.
	My colleagues and I were grateful for the Government's acceptance of the need to ensure that community cohesion was an important consideration in the decision to set up parish councils, especially in the London context, for reasons that we all know and on which I do not need to elaborate. I hope that I can be assured that the petition provisions in the new clauses will not undermine that. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said about the need for safeguards against abuse of the right to petition—such as people keeping them going for a long time—and the need to ensure that petitions are genuinely up to date and representative.
	There are those who might, in London, seek to establish parish councils for reasons that would not advance community cohesion. We think the Government were right to include safeguards for purposes of community cohesion, and some of the safeguards suggested by my hon. Friend in respect of the way in which petitions are conducted may be particularly relevant in that context.

Angela Smith: I thank Members for their contributions. The tone of our discussion has reflected our discussions in Committee on this and other issues. I, too, was surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) did not speak to his own amendments, but I shall be able to respond to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about his new clause.
	The hon. Member for Poole was worried about the two years that must elapse before a petition can be presented again. He thought that the Government were being too generous, and that the period was not long enough. Much as I would like to take credit for that generosity, I must ascribe it to the hon. Gentleman's own party. Our proposal reflects a provision in the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, introduced by the last Government, which also allowed a two-year period between petitions. We are applying the provision to community governance reviews in general.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about limits in relation to signatures. Clause 60(3) states that
	"if the area to which the petition relates has fewer than 500 local government electors, the petition must be signed by at least 50% of the electors".
	The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if it took six years to collect the signatures. I suspect that during that time it might be necessary to go back and start again, as many electors might have moved on and might no longer be on the electoral roll. The electoral roll will enable councils to ensure that a petition is valid.
	Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked which would be the principal council. The principal council will be the council that currently makes recommendations to the Secretary of State, whether it is a district council, a metropolitan authority or a London borough. There will be no conflict, because county councils have no governance role and no say in the matter.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the power to promote well-being, which was raised in other amendments. I can tell him that we would have to reject the Conservative proposals to extend that power, because its application could be very broad. We do not seek to place constraints on parishes' expenditure, but we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that the power is not abused. Parish councils vary enormously in size, shape and general nature. The largest is Weston-super-Mare, which is larger than some of the smaller district councils. There will be a basis for eligibility, which we are discussing with the National Association of Local Councils and other stakeholders, including the Local Government Association. We intend to draw on the guidance provided by the quality parish scheme. If amendments Nos. 164 to 168 are pressed to a vote, we will reject them for those reasons.
	In new clause 63, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has tried to deal with an issue that I know has concerned him for some time. I have some sympathy with what he said and I think that the issue needs clarification, but I would have to advise the House to reject the amendment if it were put to a vote—although the hon. Gentleman said that he was merely testing the water. I believe that there are defects in the drafting of the new clause. I also believe that we need to understand all the implications of the policy that it recommends, and any risks that it would pose to council tax payers in relation to parish precepts.
	The position is fairly complex. There has been some communication between parish clerks and the Department, but I should like to think further about the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I realise that he was trying to be helpful in subsection (3), which acknowledges that the Secretary of State cannot issue an open guarantee. However, it merely requires councils to "have regard for" an order by the Secretary of State. It would not be possible to pass legislation on that basis.
	We need to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal in some depth, particularly in the light of the proposed extension of the power to promote well-being. I cannot guarantee that our consideration will be completed before the Bill reaches the House of Lords, but he may wish to meet me to discuss the matter. I am rather concerned about Peter Lacey: the hon. Gentleman did not say how old he was. If he is 25, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter will definitely be resolved before he retires.

David Heath: I think Peter Lacey would probably own up to being a little older than 25, but I am grateful for the tone of the Minister's response. She proposes, in clause 57, to give the power to some parish councils. I understand why she might not wish to give plenipotentiary powers to all parish councils, but I think that it is worth considering whether a power, limited in whatever way within the budget of an individual council, can be constructed. I should be happy to meet the Minister, but it would be helpful if I could bring representatives of local government with me so that they could raise their concerns and, perhaps, provide answers to some of the concerns that she has expressed.

Angela Smith: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman suggests a meeting. It is important for the issues to be clarified, and I appreciate the tone of his comments as well.
	I did not realise how much I had missed hearing about Pratt's Bottom and Badgers Mount in Committee—but let me turn to amendments Nos. 169 and 170. All Members have made clear their views on the contribution parish councils make to the community. Parish councils enhance the democratic life of communities, and do a power of good in helping to make them better places in which to live and work where there is a demand for them. For many years there have been parish councils all over the country, except in London.
	In the past, parish councils have always required the Secretary of State's consent. The district council, or principal council, considers the matter and advises the Secretary of State, but it invariably ends up on my desk. I think it nonsensical for a Minister who has never been to an area—which may be very small—and may not even know where it is until he or she looks at a map, to decide whether the area should have a parish council. The devolutionary aspect of the Bill is that the Secretary of State's consent is no longer required, but it is difficult to justify not extending those devolved rights to London: we do not think we can deny London the same rights as other areas.
	I understand the concerns raised about such issues as community cohesion, and they have been taken on board. We are already holding discussions with London councils, the Local Government Association and others on the guidance that could be issued to local authorities. Community cohesion is important, and the whole reason for establishing parish councils is their ability to contribute to it. It was a meeting that I had with Councillor Cockell that produced the Government amendments on community governance review protection periods. We are listening to what is being said to us, and a working group including London councils, the NALC and a number of other bodies is examining the guidance with us.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 57
	 — 
	Council's power to undertake review

'A principal council may undertake a community governance review.'.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 58
	 — 
	No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition

'(1) This section applies if these conditions are met—
	(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council's area;
	(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is not in the course of undertaking a community governance review.
	(2) The principal council must undertake a community governance review that has terms of reference that allow for the petition to be considered.
	(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if—
	(a) the principal council has concluded a previous community governance review within the relevant two-year period, and
	(b) in the council's opinion the petition area covers the whole or a significant part of the area to which the previous review related.
	For further provision about this case, see section (Power to respond to petition).'.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 59
	 — 
	Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition

'(1) This section applies if the following conditions are met—
	(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council's area;
	(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is in the course of undertaking a community governance review ("the current review");
	(c) the petition area is wholly outside the area under review.
	(2) The principal council must follow one of the options in subsection (4), (5) or (6).
	(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if—
	(a) the principal council has concluded a previous community governance review within the relevant two-year period, and
	(b) in the council's opinion the petition area covers the whole or a significant part of the area to which the previous review related.
	For further provision about this case, see section (Power to respond to petition).
	(4) The first option mentioned in subsection (2) is for the principal council to modify the terms of reference of the current review so that they allow for the petition to be considered.
	(5) The second option is for the principal council to undertake a community governance review that—
	(a) is separate from the current review, and
	(b) has terms of reference that allow for the petition to be considered.
	(6) The third option is for the principal council to—
	(a) modify the terms of reference of the current review,
	(b) undertake a community governance review that is separate from the current review ("the new review"), and
	(c) secure that (when taken together)—
	(i) the terms of reference of the current review (as modified), and
	(ii) the terms of reference of the new review,
	allow for the petition to be considered.'.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 60
	 — 
	Power to respond to petition

'(1) In any of the following cases where a principal council receive a community governance petition, it is for the council to decide what action (if any) to take under section (Council's power to undertake review) (power to undertake review) or (Terms of reference of review)(4)(b) (power to modify terms of review) in response to that petition.
	(2) The first case is where—
	(a) section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) applies (no review being undertaken when petition received), but
	(b) the duty in section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(2) does not apply because of section (No review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(3) (no duty to respond to petition because previous review concluded in relevant two-year period).
	(3) The second case is where—
	(a) section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition) applies (review being undertaken when petition received: petition area wholly outside area under review), but
	(b) the duty in section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(2) does not apply because of section (Review being undertaken: duty to respond to petition)(3) (no duty to respond to petition because previous review concluded in relevant two-year period).
	(4) The third case is where these conditions are met—
	(a) a principal council receives a community governance petition which relates to the whole or part of a principal council's area;
	(b) at the time the petition is received, the council is in the course of undertaking a community governance review;
	(c) the petition area is wholly or partly inside the area under review.'.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 62
	 — 
	Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee: reviews and recommendations

'(1) Section 13 of the Local Government Act 1992 (c. 19) (reviews and recommendations of Electoral Commission and Boundary Committee) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (5)(d) substitute—
	"(d) in the case of a district council that is subject to a scheme for elections by halves or by thirds, or that has resolved to revert to being subject to such a scheme under Part 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the desirability of securing that an appropriate number of councillors is elected in each ward at each ordinary election of councillors."
	(3) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) a council is "subject to a scheme for elections by halves" if one half (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;
	(b) a council is "subject to a scheme for elections by thirds" if one third (or as nearly as may be) of its councillors are to be elected in each year in which it holds ordinary elections of councillors;
	(c) the number of councillors elected in a ward at an ordinary election of councillors is "appropriate"—
	(i) in the case of a scheme for elections by halves, if it is divisible by 2, and
	(ii) in the case of a scheme for elections by thirds, if it is divisible by 3."'.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34
	 — 
	Executive arrangements: move to alternative arrangements

'(1) The Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) as amended as follows.
	(2) For section 33(5) substitute—
	"(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating executive arrangements to operate alternative arrangements in place of the executive arrangements.".'.— [Alistair Burt.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Alistair Burt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	No. 133, in clause 40, page 23, line 32, leave out 'specified in subsections (2) to (5)'.
	No. 141, page 24, line 14, leave out subsection (6).
	No. 135, in clause 42, page 25, line 31, at end insert—
	'33ZA Changing governance arrangements
	(1) Any local authority in England may submit a scheme of internal governance appropriate to its circumstances, which shall stand deferred until the next ordinary day of election and may not take effect until the day after that day.
	(2) Where no recognised group has overall control, it shall be competent for the council to implement other arrangements as it may determine.'.
	No. 136, page 26, leave out lines 4 to 10 and insert—'A local authority in England which is operating alternative arrangements may—'.
	No. 137, page 26, leave out lines 13 to 18.
	No. 138, page 26, leave out lines 23 to 25.
	No. 139, page 26, line 28, leave out from 'arrangements' to end of line 29.
	Government amendment No. 12.
	No. 142, page 27, leave out line 44.
	No. 140, page 28, line 9, leave out '33A' and insert '33ZA'.
	Government amendment No. 213.
	No. 143, page 29, line 19, leave out 'or elected executive'.
	No. 144, page 29, leave out line 23.
	No. 145, page 29, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 30.
	No. 146, page 30, line 3, leave out 'or elected'.
	No. 147, page 30, line 7, leave out from 'executive' to end of line 8.
	No. 148, page 30, line 11, leave out from 'mayor' to end of line 12.
	Government amendments Nos. 214 and 215.
	No. 149, page 31, leave out line 19.
	Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217.
	No. 150, in clause 43, page 32, line 22, leave out 'an elected executive,'.
	Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
	No. 151, in page 33, line 1, leave out clause 45.
	Government amendment No. 15.
	No. 152, in clause 46, page 34, line 17, leave out from 'mayor' to end of line 18.
	No. 153, in clause 47, page 34, leave out line 29.
	No. 154, page 34, line 30, leave out 'other'.
	Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
	No. 155, in clause 49, page 35, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
	No. 259, in page 38, line 1, leave out Clause 51.
	Government amendments Nos. 18, 218, 222 to 225, 57 and 226.

Alistair Burt: I shall do my best to be brief. New clause 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and a number of other colleagues. The Bill has generally been consensual, but now the rubber will hit the road: we now need to ask the Minister to choose from some of the issues at the heart of the Bill.
	Committee members will remember a champagne moment when the Minister, having been chided for being over-centralist, stood back from the Front Bench and said, "I want to be devolutionary; let them choose." That was a moving moment and, as we have seen in Committee and in the Chamber, he has in limited respects been open to allowing people to choose, but not on executive arrangements. I have three particular concerns to raise, and as I suspect that a couple of other Members want to speak I shall do my best to be brief.
	Local freedom is a key issue. At the heart of our debates on the Bill is an issue that we have discussed intermittently during its passage: whether it is truly devolutionary. The Bill provides an acid test. Local decision making is key to local government. The Government are right that local authorities need to have good, clear, effective and efficient leadership, but it must be local. Our principal complaint with the Bill is that the Government are being prescriptive in having a limited number of models for efficient and effective local government. We simply pose this question: why?
	Do the Government truly trust local government to deliver? The Minister has made much of the progress of local government over the past 10 years, which he claims is due to the targets exerted by Government, but which local government feels owes much to its ability to respond.

Phil Woolas: I and my ministerial colleagues always acknowledge the three factors that have led to improvement: the hard work of councillors and officers; the extra resources provided by this successful Government; and the performance regime. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.

Alistair Burt: I am pleased that the Minister took the chance to respond to that. I am sure that he would agree that a key factor is the ability of local councils to have responded and to have worked hard.
	This is where the issue of trust comes in. Our contention—and that of many Committee members—is simply that the Government should not be so prescriptive. Do they truly trust local government? Have lessons been learned from 20 years of central direction to cure various ills in local government, and from local government's response to that? Now is the time to let local councils choose what model of leadership they want.
	There are serious penalties if councils get things wrong. The electorate is increasingly sophisticated. The Minister said recently that it is increasingly hard to discern national swings in local elections. He is right. One of the things that is interesting about local election results nowadays is that councils get thrown out of office for poor performance no matter what political hue they are—and no matter what hue are the Government of the day. Councils know that there are now penalties if they get things wrong. So why cannot we let local authorities choose what executive model they think suits them best?

David Heath: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is not for the Secretary of State to prescribe matters in such detail. However, I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman's new clause 34 gives all the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe, and if he or she chooses not to prescribe, not to do so. That is an internal paradox in the new clause.

Alistair Burt: No, what I am doing is using this new clause as a symbolic way of opening up the possibility of a variety of alternative arrangements being available to local councils. We could move a series of new clauses; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to go through all the amendments in this group. We have chosen this one to be a key new clause, and it allows us to raise the possibility of alternative arrangements, and we intend to press it to a Division.
	In Committee, we raised the growing risk of separation of the people from local and national Government, and the sense that their vote now counts for rather less than it used to. The Local Government Association supports our amendments and agrees that local councils should have more say in which executive arrangements best suit them. Therefore, my first point was about the need for greater local freedom.
	My second point is that the prescriptive models used do not allow the opportunity to go for some form of revised committee system. I ask Members to note that I did not propose that we go back to the old committee system. We seek to give authorities who so desire the opportunity to go to a modernised and revised committee system.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some authorities, such as North Cornwall district council in my constituency, have never moved from that committee system. What proposals does he have for councils that feel that the arrangements are working well for them?

Alistair Burt: It is a fortunate council, but the vast majority of councils have had to move from that system. We wish to enable those authorities that want to retain such a system to continue with the alternative arrangements for as long as they wish. That is contrary to the determination of Government; they would sooner or later close down that option.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) was particularly forthright in his contributions in Committee. For example, he said:
	"I do indeed recall the strengths of that system as well as its weaknesses. I am convinced that those strengths can be used to produce a reformed committee structure and a system that would enable the leadership and accountability that we have all said we would wish local government to deliver." ——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2007; c. 457.]
	He is right. Committee members of different parties expressed the same sense. We could not quite understand why the Government were so adamant about closing down the option of a revised committee system.
	In the spirit of the debates that we have had, I urge the Minister to think again when this Bill passes to another place, and to listen to councillors who say that the change from the committee system has disfranchised a number of back-bench councillors who want more to their role than just scrutiny. They want to deliver more. Councillor Phyllis Gershon of Bedfordshire county council—I am delighted to have had the chance to mention Bedfordshire, as it has not been included in the place-naming during the course of the evening—has persistently told me that councils need that option. It should not be forced on them, but it should be an option for them. I ask the Minister: why be so prescriptive?
	My third and last point relates to elected executives. The Government will not allow councils the option of a revised, modernised committee system, which many councillors have mentioned, including the council leaders who came to brief the Committee. Members of the Committee have also spoken about it. However, the Government are prepared to press heavily for elected executives, although we cannot see any evidence that anyone wants them. We pressed the Minister on that in Committee: where are the examples of the public, or the local government fraternity, clamouring for the opportunity to deliver elected executives? The Minister was not able to enlighten us. I therefore humbly suggest that local authorities will not pick up on that option. I cannot see why he should be so keen on that option, but not on a modernised committee system. Several of our amendments deal with an elected executive and, had there been more time, we would probably have pressed an amendment on throwing out the elected executive option. Instead, we will probably press to a vote the general amendment on clause 34 that I mentioned earlier.
	Those are my three points—local freedom is being denied, the committee model is not provided as an option and elected executives are being given the thumbs up by Government when nobody seems to want them. In the spirit of the Bill, which is supposed to be about a listening Government, we have given the Government an opportunity not to be prescriptive. They have not taken similar chances in the past, and that has marred the Bill, but this is an opportunity for a champagne moment. The Minister could say, "We have listened to you, you've got it right, and we'll give it up."

Philip Davies: I of course endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, but I speak in support of amendment No. 259, in my name. It would delete clause 51 and the time limit for holding referendums. Clause 51 states:
	"A local authority...in England may not hold more than one referendum in any period of ten years".
	It also says that the clause
	"applies to referendums held before, and referendums held after, this section comes into force."
	It seems to me that the clause has been put in specifically to deal with what might be described as the Doncaster problem.
	The elected mayor in Doncaster is very unpopular and has become a bit of a laughing stock. The residents of Doncaster have put together a petition, with the necessary signatures, to have a further referendum on whether to scrap the mayoral system in the area, much to the embarrassment, no doubt, of the Labour party in Doncaster and of the Government, who have tried so hard to push the mayoral system in this country. This clause appears to be a cynical attempt to prevent the good people of Doncaster from being able to get rid of their mayor. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm—if he will not accept my amendment—that the people of Doncaster, who have gathered the thousands of names on the petition to get rid of the mayor—that has been endorsed by Doncaster council—will not be prevented from having a referendum to get rid of their unpopular mayor. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up.

Andrew Stunell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place for the beginning of this debate, so I shall call the Minister.

Phil Woolas: This debate has, not surprisingly, repeated some of the points that were made in Committee. I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I acknowledge the limits to devolution that the Bill imposes and I shall try to convince the House of the justification for them. The Government believe that those limits are in the best interests of local government and sustainable communities.
	I am glad that the main point—that the Bill is devolutionary—is broadly accepted. Last week, I cited the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), a previous Minister with responsibility for local government, that change in local government finance was a marathon, not a sprint. Change in the power relationships between central and local government, and local government and its communities, is, if not a marathon, at least a 10 km run. It should certainly not be done in haste, and it is important to build consensus.
	The second principle is that in devolving powers, the Government—and, I suggest, Parliament—have a responsibility to do so to structures and functions that can take responsibility on behalf of the public. The logical consequence of the argument of the devolutionist without any catalyst is that local areas should be free to choose their own form of local government. I think that there are limits and I shall explain what they are.
	Our arguments are not just based on opinion; there is substantial research to back up our points. Indeed, I will shortly publish a paper entitled "Does Leadership Matter?", including research showing that the two main current models of executive arrangements—directly elected mayors and leaders with cabinets—demonstrate benefits in visibility and accountability and the streamlined focus for decision-making that is needed in modern local government. I do not base my arguments only on that report, of course, because the House has yet to see it. It will be published shortly, but there is further evidence that has already been published.
	It is true—the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire put the argument in Committee—that the best leaders can be successful in any system. The argument of some who propose elected mayors often relies on the example of New York in recent years, but they fail to point out that New York went bankrupt under a system of elected mayors. It does not logically follow that the structural system for governance of local authorities necessarily provides strong leaders. Neither does the opposite follow—there could be a complete shambles and strong leaders emerge from that—

Michael Fabricant: Tony Blair.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman mentions my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I would agree with him. We were in a bit of a mess and my right hon. Friend did come and sort things out. God bless him for that. There are only four or five weeks left before jokes about public schoolboys can become part of our debates again without any embarrassment on our part. I am looking forward to that because I am told that there are five old Etonians in the shadow Cabinet—[Hon. Members: "Only five!"] That is just Eton—you are frowning at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was merely wondering where this was going, and I suspect that it is further and further away from the new clause.

Phil Woolas: I am desperately trying to sustain the argument, with little success, that the structure of local government has a relationship to the strength of leadership, but is not a causal effect. My argument is that the arrangements we have suggested are more likely to lead to such circumstances.

Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Phil Woolas: I will of course give way to my hon. Friend, as she represents Stoke, which has a unique system.

Joan Walley: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks, but Stoke-on-Trent is in a category all of its own, because of the system of a council manager and an elected mayor, and that was mentioned specifically in the White Paper. Can he reassure me that arrangements are in hand to enable us to proceed with the promised commission so that in Stoke-on-Trent we can reach our own decision on how to proceed at the next local elections, which will be relevant to finding a way forward?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend once again takes the opportunity to promote the case for Stoke-on-Trent, and I commend her for that. Only two local authorities in this country present separate cases. Stoke-on-Trent is the only one to have adopted the elected mayor with the city manager model, and that is different from the one in Doncaster to which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred. In addition, the council in Brighton and Hove also has separate arrangements. The commission is going ahead and announcements will be made shortly about Stoke-on-Trent, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support in that process.
	Of course, there are caveats. Just as other councils face restrictions on what they can and cannot do, if the commission proposed to create a kibbutz for governance in Stoke-on-Trent I would not accept it. However, on a more serious note, the answer to the question poised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) is yes, very definitely. Part of my argument is that Stoke-on-Trent needs that model of governance, but it has its limits.
	I am not making a cause and effect argument. The evidence is that the most likely improvements are made when strong executive arrangements are in place.

Andrew Stunell: What makes the Minister think that the models that he has chosen this time will have a higher ratio of success than last time? He has already said that the Stoke model had not succeeded, so why does he believe that central direction is essential to the process?

Phil Woolas: First, in Stoke, Doncaster and elsewhere it is important that we separate the office holder from the office. The hon. Member for Shipley referred to a petition in Doncaster. I am not sure what it has to do with him as Doncaster is not in his bit of the county, but he asked a question and I shall answer it. The petition relates to the position of the mayoralty, but we must separate that post from the person who occupies it. If an electorate want to remove a mayor, they can do so at the ballot box, but separate arrangements govern changing the office, as I shall explain later.
	I shall lay out some of the evidence that I hope will convince the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). It is generally accepted by local authorities that the new arrangements have, on the whole, led to some improvement. For example, a recent survey of councillors and officers showed that 71 per cent. believe that leadership by executive councillors has had a positive impact on the performance improvement in their authorities. More than half of councillors and nearly three quarters of officers believe that the new arrangements have made the executive more effective in articulating the vision for their area.
	What is important is that, through the new arrangements, the Government and Parliament are asking local authorities to take on more responsibilities in their work with other public sector agency partners and with the private and voluntary sectors in their areas. Sir Michael Lyons described that role as "place shaping".
	I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove accepts that the process of devolution and decentralisation is about more than devolving responsibilities to local government. It is also about devolving those responsibilities from Whitehall to the other public sector partnerships in a local area. That is why the public's requirement for strong executive leadership goes beyond the council itself and includes services across their area.
	Secondly, to complete the jigsaw, this Bill builds on the arrangements for overview and scrutiny put in place by previous legislation. Those arrangements cover the work of the local authority and all public sector and other organisations in the delivery of local government services. Indeed, this Bill brings health and local government closer together.

Tom Levitt: I agree with every word of the last couple of paragraphs uttered by my hon. Friend the Minister, and that is why I believe that this is such a good Bill. Throughout the debate, we have acknowledged that it extends the range of choices available to local authorities. It does not do so universally—sometimes the range is extended in some directions more than others—and we have argued about that previously. However, does he agree that the provisions under discussion extend the choice available to local authorities in such a way that they are able to find the best direction for governance locally? Ironically, given what we have heard this afternoon, would not new clause 34 reduce the options available to councils?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ironically—although perhaps it is not so surprising—we are having a topsy turvy debate. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire claims that his proposals would benefit devolution, even though they do not. To be fair to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, his proposals do promote devolution, although I think that they go too far. However, we should not be surprised at all that: the Conservatives are centralists, while the Liberal Democrats are devolutionists without responsibility. I guess that explains where we have ended up. I must try to rebuild the consensus that I have been crafting so carefully for the past two years and which I may have destroyed in the last 10 seconds. This debate has revealed the divergence of view between the Liberal Democrats and the main Opposition party, whose proposed new clauses would reduce the range of choice that the Government are offering.
	Neither I nor the Government claim, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire suggested, that councils are "clamouring" after the elected executive model. I readily concede that they are not.

Tom Levitt: Not yet.

Phil Woolas: They will be clamouring for it in the future, of course, but the serious point is that the idea for directly elected executives came from local authorities themselves. Given that that model meets the criteria of providing a strong leadership model with clearer visibility and accountability, it would be wrong to rule it out. My problem with the old committee structure, and with most of the enhanced committee structures that I have seen in practice, is that they do not provide clear leadership. I think that the changes in the Bill will get the balance right.

Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: I will because the hon. Gentleman has been consistent on this point.

Andrew Stunell: I very much appreciate the Minister giving way. He said that directly elected executives had the support of local authorities—that is, in the plural. The LGA told us in evidence that one local authority supported the idea, but I discovered subsequently that that evidence had not been discussed in the council before it was submitted. What other council shares that point of view and thus justifies his assertion that local authorities, in the plural, supported the directly elected executive model?

Phil Woolas: I did not say that local authorities supported that model, but that the idea had come from them. That is a different matter, but the answer to his question is embodied in the strong executive and Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall county council. I could also speak about Stockton, Durham and elsewhere, but the serious point is that the idea has support in local authorities that cover very large geographical areas. There, the traditional system of making up the cabinet from divisional ward members requires huge amounts of travel, often for short meetings. In part, the idea of the directly elected executive arose from the geography of those areas—but, hey, let us not worry about that. If the people in those areas want to pick up that option, they can; if they do not, they do not have to.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that although strengthening executive powers as he suggests has certain advantages, it may increase the alienation of back-bench councillors? Is he concerned about that?

Phil Woolas: One important argument about the benefits of the old committee system is that it brought experience to so-called back-bench councillors, or front-line councillors as many people refer to them, but I believe that the overview and scrutiny process that is now embedding provides that experience. The process can increasingly involve not just scrutinising executive decisions but making recommendations and reports, rather as our Select Committees do, and crucially it does so across the public sector, not just in the institution of the council. My second argument, with which I hope my hon. Friend will agree, is that we are kidding ourselves if we think that the old committee system did not involve an executive; it had a hidden executive—the chairs of the senior committees were, ipso facto, the executive of the council. Our model offers a better way forward.
	To the first point made by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire—let them choose—I say, yes but within limits. The hon. Gentleman's second point—that the revised committee decision-making system should be a matter for local councillors—does not, I fear, meet the new statutory framework that the Bill puts in place. On clamouring for elected executives, the hon. Gentleman has a point, but let him give me a champagne moment: let them have it if they want it and we will not worry about it. Perhaps we could call it the Burt system.
	The hon. Member for Shipley made a point about Doncaster. I emphasise the fact that his point related to the office holder, not to the office. Our argument for a 10-year period is a fair one because we want a balance between devolution and stability, and a four-year mayoral office could be bedevilled by the threat of a referendum—I use the word "threat" deliberately—often inspired for mischievous purposes. Of course, the public have the right to reverse the decision and the principle enshrined in the Bill is that the method by which an executive arrangement was chosen is the method by which it can be replaced. The evidence is that the mayoral models are improving the situation in those areas—

Philip Davies: indicated dissent.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I could take him to Torbay where the Conservative mayor is doing a good job. The idea of having a mayor was opposed at first, but it is now embedded. The model might not suit neighbouring councils in that region or elsewhere, but we have made a change that is delivering improvements in local areas.

Khalid Mahmood: Under the Bill, the right to petition for a referendum will be taken away and councils will decide about whether to have an elected mayor. In Birmingham, the local authority does not want an elected mayor but, as my hon. Friend knows, a huge campaign for a petition has been mounted by the  Birmingham Evening Mail. What will happen in such communities?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Bill does not take away the right of the public to raise a petition to bring about a new executive model; it enhances the power of the council to take that decision, should it so wish—not as an alternative to a petition, but in addition to that right.
	With those arguments, I ask the House to resist the new clause and to vote for the Government amendments.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister and I have listened carefully to his arguments, but we intend to press the new clause. It is not good enough to reject a model that many Members and many councillors think valuable and to persist in including an option that no one wants. Given the points we have made about local freedom and local desire to choose, it would be best to allow the fullest possible opportunity for councils to make that choice, so I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 64
	 — 
	Abolition of Standards Board for England, repeal of provisions relating to investigations etc. (Wales) and abolition of Adjudication Panels etc.

'(1) Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (conduct of local government members and employees) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit sections 57 to 80.
	(3) Omit Schedule 4.'.— [Philip Davies.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 250, in clause 141, page 97, line 10, leave out from 'include' to end of line 11 and insert
	'the principle that the conduct of a member or co-opted member in their private capacity is not covered by this Part of this Act except where it has resulted in a criminal conviction which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member or co-opted member'.
	Amendment No. 251, page 97, line 14, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 15 and insert
	'to the conduct of a member or co-opted member in their private capacity where that conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member or co-opted member'.
	Amendment No. 134, page 97, line 15, at end insert—
	'(4B) Such provisions shall include a right of a person who is member of a relevant body to speak and vote at any meeting of that body or of any delegated committee or sub-committee to which he has been appointed in respect of the determination of any planning applications within the area which he represents on that body, not withstanding any disclosure he may have made about his predisposition in respect of that application.'.
	Amendment No. 252, page 97, line 19, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 20 and insert
	'to the conduct of a member or co-opted member in their private capacity where that conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction which is directly relevant to the performance of the official functions of the member or co-opted member'.
	Amendment No. 260, page 99, line 2, leave out clauses 143 and 144.
	Government amendments Nos. 61 to 67.
	Amendment No. 261, page 105, line 1, leave out clauses 148 to 157.
	Government amendments Nos. 68 to 72.
	Amendment No. 262, in clause 158, page 112, leave out lines 15 and 16.
	Amendment No. 263, page 112, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3).
	Government amendment No. 73.
	Amendment No. 264, in schedule 15, page 190, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—
	
		
			  'Sections 57 to 80. 
			  Schedule 4.'.

Philip Davies: Amendments Nos. 260 to 264, which I also tabled, are consequential to new clause 64, which would abolish the Standards Board for England. From the outset I should declare an interest: my wife has recently been elected to the newly formed Baildon parish council in the village in which I live in Shipley.
	The Standards Board for England has become a bit of a laughing stock in local government. It is damaging the reputation and standing of local councillors and local government. Indeed, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said:
	"The system has generated a large number of apparently minor, vexatious and politically motivated complaints"—
	I could not have put it better myself.
	The number of complaints to the Standards Board has been rising year on year, from 2,948 in 2002-03 to 3,861 in 2004-05. And yet according to Government figures, in the last year for which figures are available only 3 per cent. of complaints resulted in a verdict that the code had been breached, and many of the breaches were very minor offences, such as not showing sufficient respect to people—as the Mayor of London can testify. This constant rise in the number of allegations clearly shows that either standards are not improving as a result of the Standards Board, or the process is fuelling unfounded and malicious complaints.
	There is very little comeback for complainants when allegations against local councillors are shown to be vexatious and lacking in substance. Worse, the Standards Board proudly states that for data protection reasons it does not publish the names of people who make allegations. That leaves councillors very exposed to politically motivated and unnecessary complaints. Even worse, it takes so long to investigate complaints. Sir Alistair Graham wrote in a report that research by the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that
	"the time taken to complete investigations"
	was
	"an average of 8.5 months",
	with
	"a backlog of over 400 cases".
	That obviously has a negative impact on people who are facing complaints, with the smell hanging over them for so long, and also sometimes on the people who have made a complaint, who feel that nothing ever seems to get done.
	Despite this absolute shambles, the cost to the Government of the Standards Board is forecast to rise to £9.4 million; that is up from £6.2 million in 2003. So not only is it damaging to local government, but it is a very expensive exercise.
	One of the consequences of this situation is that there is a reported shortage of candidates coming forward for places on parish councils, because they do not want to get embroiled in all this nonsense. In my local area we have a shortage of people wishing to stand for the parish council, and I do not think it any coincidence that that has happened since the introduction of the Standards Board.
	At this point I must pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who wrote a tremendous pamphlet on the Standards Board called "A Question of Standards". Given that we have limited time, I urge all hon. Members to read that pamphlet, which exposed the problems of the Standards Board and highlighted some of the cases that it has dealt with.
	In one case, the Standards Board investigated a complaint of misconduct made against a chap who was a long-standing parish councillor and county councillor, and indeed a churchwarden—an upstanding member of the community. Someone in the parish had baked a loaf of bread, and the lady claimed that this upstanding member of the community refused to eat her bread at a Sunday communion, and that that was tantamount to harassment and humiliation. She deemed him unfit for public office, and complained to the Standards Board. While that allegation was minor, the ridiculous investigations that ensue following such complaints are not uncommon. That emphasises the ridiculous situation that we have got ourselves into.
	The chairman of a parish council proposed that a grant of £300 be made to a village club for retired people. Two other councillors declared an interest as club members, and they did not speak or vote on the matter; but because they did not leave the room, an anonymous complaint was made to the Standards Board that they and the two other councillors were in breach of the rules. The resulting investigation lasted nine months, culminating in a full hearing involving 15 people, including lawyers, district councillors and a senior enforcement officer. The hearing lasted four hours. All were found guilty and sent on a training course on how to follow the rules. That particular charade cost the taxpayer thousands and thousands of pounds. Such instances are clearly not uncommon, given that only 3 per cent. of complaints lead to people being found in breach—and that was one of the 3 per cent. The whole situation is a shambles.
	There is now more scrutiny of parish councillors and local district councillors than there is of Cabinet Ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for introducing the relevant legislation. If the Standards Board applied to Ministers, it is likely that by now, under the system that he set up for parish and district councillors, he would have been suspended.
	Quite apart from the way in which the Standards Board has operated, there is an important principle at stake—a principle of democracy. When people are elected as councillors, whether district, parish or county councillors, they are there to represent their constituents—the people who elected them. It should be for those people to determine whether they consider that their councillors' actions are appropriate. It should not be for a committee of busybodies dealing with tittle-tattle to decide whether people who have been democratically elected have acted properly or improperly. Such matters should be decided by the electorate at the next election.
	The Standards Board is a shambles. It is incredibly damaging to the reputation of local councillors and local government generally. It serves no particular fit purpose. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division, to test the will of the House. I think that Members of Parliament should stand up for local councillors, who work incredibly hard on behalf of their electorate and do not deserve to have the smell of this self-serving Standards Board constantly hanging over them.

Andrew Dismore: I have some sympathy with the position taken by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), having seen the cases involving Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg of Westminster city council and the London Mayor, which there is no time to go into.
	However, I shall focus on amendments Nos. 250 to 252, which, in effect, have been tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, and give effect to the recommendations of our 11th report and our subsequent monitoring report. In our view, there is no doubt that that the Bill's proposed extension of the scope of the conduct of local authority members that may be covered by code of conduct engages members' right to respect for their private life under article 8, and their right to freedom of expression under article 10, of the European convention on human rights. We believe that there is a real risk that those two articles will be breached.
	In January 2005 the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered the question in its 10th report. It recommended that the model code should make a clear distinction between private and official conduct, and that private conduct wholly unrelated to an individual's official capacity should fall outside the ethical framework. The most obvious example of that was the case of the Mayor of London, in which the High Court allowed the Mayor's appeal on the basis that the code of conduct did not apply because the Mayor was not acting in his official capacity and the code did not extend to regulating the Mayor's private conduct. So far, so good. However, it appears that the Government want to overturn the decision of the High Court through the proposals in the Bill.
	In proceedings in the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for Local Government confirmed that the policy objective was to bring within the code instances where members who were acting outside their official duties received a criminal conviction. He said:
	"We are trying to say that the code of conduct should not cover a councillor's private life, with the caveat that if a criminal conviction was involved, that should be taken on board by the standards committee."
	We welcome that clarification, but that is not what the Bill actually says. As it stands, the Bill provides for a power which, on the face of it, is capable of being exercised so as to make the code of conduct apply to any private conduct of a member. In our view, that is highly likely to give rise to breaches of members' rights to privacy and freedom of expression under articles 8 and 10. There is nothing in the Bill to confine the power along the lines that the Minister suggested.
	Indeed, the hon. Gentleman told the Public Bill Committee that hon. Members might
	"have the impression...that we are trying to do the opposite of what we are really trying to do",
	and later added that
	"the law has to be widened and clarified so that the code can be narrowed." ——[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2007; c. 419-21.]
	The members of the Joint Committee simply do not understand that rather puzzling explanation, and we see no reason why the Bill should not expressly state the exact extent to which the code should apply to private conduct by members—for example, by providing that the only private conduct to which the code applies is conduct that has resulted in a criminal conviction.
	The second problem that remains is that the Government's intention appears to be that any criminal conviction, however minor, should be capable of counting as conduct that could reasonably be regarded as bringing a member's office into disrepute. That would mean that speeding tickets or other regulatory offences of a minor nature would be within the scope of the code of conduct. We agree with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that only private conduct resulting in a criminal conviction relevant to the member's official duties should be within the scope of the code of conduct.
	We corresponded with the Minister and we were not satisfied with the outcome of that correspondence. As the Bill neither states the basic principle that private conduct should not be covered by the code, nor defines an exception to that principle, such as cases in which private conduct has resulted in a criminal conviction, we remain of the view that we should press our amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point in the time that he has to reply. If he does not, amendments of a similar nature will inevitably be tabled in the other place, and they will almost certainly be made.
	We are trying to give effect to the Government's stated policy, which we think is a reasonable approach. If it were a question of restricting the code to relevant criminal convictions of a sufficiently serious nature to impinge on someone's ability to serve as a councillor, we would say, "So be it," but unfortunately the Government amendments simply do not do that. Our Committee wants legislation that says what it should say; it should confine itself to the narrow requirements of policy, which are acceptable, and not go beyond them, as the legislation does, and impinge on articles 8 and 10 of the European convention on human rights.

Andrew Gwynne: In Committee, I spoke at length on that very issue. Is it not the point that many of the complaints made to the Standards Board are frivolous or vexatious, and are made either by political opponents or by the disgruntled? Is it not the case that if we are to have a body such as the Standards Board, we need to tighten up on such complaints and deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is talking about?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Shipley, who moved a new clause that would abolish the Standards Board. I certainly do not think that we should go that far—there must be a minimum degree of standards—but there is the question of whether what is proposed in the Bill is discriminatory and contrary to article 14. For some reason, we have singled out local government councillors for a regime that is much more rigorous than any that applies to anyone else in public life, including ourselves. After last Friday's debate, we need to be a little more aware of the fact that we should treat people fairly and equally.
	I hope that the Minister will take my Committee's concerns on board. We are dealing with significant issues of human rights, and it could be argued that the Standards Board has itself been brought into disrepute by some of the cases that it has taken up. If we are serious about maintaining standards in public life, and particularly in local government, we have to be realistic about what we do and do not expect from our councillors.

Robert Syms: Debates on first principles are usually the best, even when they are very brief. We know why the Standards Board was set up, and most of us have seen how it has operated over a number of years. Most of us probably know councillors who have been affected by it in one way or another. The most important issue is the length of time that it has taken to deal with many investigations, and the way in which it has operated; it does not seem that there is natural justice in the whole process. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made a good point, and we have concerns about widening the scope, but we welcome many of the other issues that the Minister discussed, and the measures that will localise many aspects of standards. Progress is being made, and throughout the Committee stage I was pleased with what the Minister said. In our last general election campaign we opposed the Standards Board, and that may well be our position at the next election, too. We believe that we need to keep the Minister on his toes, so we will support my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) when his new clause is pressed to a Division.

Andrew Stunell: I want to draw the House's attention to amendment No. 134, in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which addresses a completely different issue: the capacity of local councillors to stick up for their constituents when planning issues are being discussed and voted on by councils. It deals with the difficult doctrine of predisposition and bias, which we spent some time on in Committee.
	Bearing in mind what was said in Committee, and the sympathetic words that we have heard from the Minister in respect of matters other than planning, I hope that he now feels able to move forward on the planning issue. I particularly draw his attention to what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said yesterday about the importance, under the new planning White Paper, of more community engagement and involvement with planning at the local level. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we would be preposterously incapable of delivering that if, every time that there was such engagement, all local representatives were excluded from participating.
	I now want to give the Minister the opportunity to say something about that, and the other issues. We shall support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Some progress has been made, but more needs to be made.

Phil Woolas: In the brief time available to me, I shall attempt to respond to the points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is clearly a Yorkshireman. He stated what he thinks, and he thinks we should get rid of the Standards Board lock, stock and barrel. He is consistent, although I wish he would get off the fence on some of the other issues. We do not agree with that view, although we agree with part of his analysis. On some occasions the processes have unintentionally damaged the reputation of local government, but we think the return to a more locally based system is right.
	There are examples of frivolous complaints, which we have tried to address. Frivolous complaints are made against the police, and the hon. Gentleman would not want us to abolish the police force, and similarly the court and the police court. We have a straightforward disagreement. I respect that. We have put in place measures that will enhance the reputation of local government and provide for a sensible code.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raises a technically more difficult issue. I understand exactly what he and his Committee are trying to do, but my preference is that the stricture should not be written into the Bill. The code that will apply will meet his intention. I should like more time to consider the matter. The explanation that I gave the Committee was that the code refers to criminal convictions. There was a debate about that definition. The code and the practice will make that clear.
	We have agreed with the Standards Board that during this year we and the board will monitor and review the introduction and working of the new code, and we intend to review it afterwards. I argued in Committee that we need to clarify the legislation in order to comply with the judge's ruling, but it is the code that enforces the ethical regime. My hon. Friend's intention is met by the new code. He shakes his head. We have a disagreement. I undertake to look at the point. He is probably right to say that it will come up in the other place.
	As I have failed to satisfy my hon. Friend, let me try to satisfy the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on the point that he consistently makes about planning. The code of conduct does not prevent a member from having a predisposition towards a particular outcome for a planning proposal. However, where, for example, a councillor is strongly identified in favour of or against a particular planning proposal, that might amount to predetermination, were that member to participate in the decision on that application. As I have said, it is planning case law, not the code, that deals with predetermination. Where predetermination occurs, members have made up their minds about a matter and are not prepared to listen to the arguments raised at the council meeting.
	It is important for natural justice that people should get a fair hearing when a planning application is made. As I indicated in Committee, we have been considering the issue of predetermination so that concern to guard against predetermination does not fetter a councillor's capacity to speak up for the local electorate. We have discussed the matter with the Standards Board, and I can tell the House that at its meeting last week, the board agreed to issue, after consultation, a commentary on predetermination to help members and monitoring officers to understand the situation.
	In other words, we believe that it is the application of case law in much too restrictive a manner by monitoring officers that has led to a culture in which councillors have been unable to speak out. It is that case law, not the code of conduct, that is fettering elected councillors. Again, I agree with the intention. It is clearly right that local councillors should be able to speak up for their constituents, but it is also right that people before a planning committee should have a fair hearing. I believe that we can square that circle.

Philip Davies: I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged some of the problems and respects our genuine difference of opinion. None the less, I shall press new clause 64 to a vote.

It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker,  put  forthwith  the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order  [ 17 May ] .
	 The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 257.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 31
	 — 
	Eligible councils

Amendment made: No. 196, page 17, line 36, leave out clause 31.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 32
	 — 
	Changing scheme for ordinary elections

Amendment made: No. 197, page 18, line 4, leave out clause 32.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 33
	 — 
	Scheme for whole-council elections

Amendments made: No. 198, page 18, line 31. leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	'(1) On passing a resolution for whole-council elections, a council becomes subject to the following electoral scheme.'.
	No. 199, page 19, line 4, leave out '2008' and insert '2010'.
	No. 200, page 19, line 9, leave out 'the purposes of section 32' and insert 'whole-council elections'.
	No. 201, page 19, leave out lines 10 to 13.
	No. 202, page 19, line 14, leave out 'the purposes of section 32' and insert 'whole-council elections'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 34
	 — 
	Publicising change of scheme for ordinary elections

Amendments made: No. 203, page 19, line 20, leave out 'the purposes of section 32' and insert 'whole-council elections'.
	No. 204, page 19, line 29, at end insert 'under section 33'.
	No. 205, page 19, line 30, leave out 'for whole-council elections'.
	No. 206, page 19, line 37, leave out 'scheme for whole-council elections' and insert 'new electoral scheme'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 35
	 — 
	Notice to Electoral Commission

Amendment made: No. 207, page 19, line 40, leave out 'the purposes of section 32' and insert 'whole-council elections'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 36
	 — 
	Amendment of existing provisions about schemes for ordinary elections

Amendments made: No. 208, page 20, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 209, page 20, line 12, leave out 'subsection (2)(c)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.
	No. 258, page 20, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
	No. 211, page 20, line 23, leave out '85(2)' and insert '85'.
	No. 212, page 20, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 89, page 20, line 29, at end insert—
	'(5) If—
	(a) a local authority makes a request under section 7(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, and
	(b) immediately before subsection (1)(a) above comes into force in relation to that authority, the request has not yet been dealt with,
	the repeal of section 7(4) to (6) of the 1972 Act does not apply to the request unless, and until, it is dealt with.
	(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a request under section 7(4) of the 1972 Act is "dealt with" in either of these cases—
	(a) if the Secretary of State notifies the local authority that he has decided not to make an order under section 7(6) of the 1972 Act in response to the request;
	(b) if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 7(6) in response to the request.
	(7) The repeal of section 7(6) or 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or of section 86(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 (so far as it relates to England) does not affect any order made under that provision before its repeal.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 42
	 — 
	Changing governance arrangements

Amendments made: No. 12, page 27, line 40, leave out 'members or'.
	No. 213, page 28, line 35, leave out '2007' and insert '2008'.
	No. 214, page 30, leave out lines 15 to 28.
	No. 215, page 30, line 35, leave out '2008' and insert '2009'.
	No. 216, page 31, line 31, column 2, leave out '2007' and insert '2009'.
	No. 217, page 31, line 32, column 2, leave out '2011' and insert '2013'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 44
	 — 
	Elected mayors

Amendments made: No. 13, page 32, line 32, after 'authority' insert 'in England'.
	No. 14, page 32, line 35, after 'mayor' insert 'of a local authority'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 45
	 — 
	Elected executives

Amendment made: No. 15, page 33, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
	'(4) The number of persons included in a proposed executive must comply with the requirements in the second column of the following table that apply to the local authority.
	The requirements that apply to the local authority are those in the row that sets out the kind of executive arrangements operated by the local authority.
	
		
			 Kind of executive arrangements Requirements 
			 The local authority's executive arrangements include provision under paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 1 (specified membership of executive). The number of persons included in a proposed executive must be the same as the specified membership. 
			 The local authority's executive arrangements include provision under paragraph 2A(2D) of Schedule 1 (specified minimum and maximum membership of executive). The number of persons included in a proposed executive— (a) must be the same as, or greater than, the specified minimum membership, but (b) must not be greater than the specified maximum membership. 
			 The local authority's executive arrangements do not include provision under paragraph 2A(2) or (2D) of Schedule 1. The number of persons included in a proposed executive— (a) must be 3 or more, but (b) must not be greater than the maximum number of members of the elected executive (as determined under section 11(8) or regulations under section 11(9)).'.

Clause 48
	 — 
	Time of elections etc

Amendments made: No. 16, page 34, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
	'(1) Section 41 of the Local Government Act 2000 (regulations about time of elections etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) The provision of section 41 becomes subsection (1) of that section.
	(3) In subsection (1)—'.
	No. 17, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
	'(4) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(2) Regulations under this section may not provide for an elected executive by-election to be held if the number of remaining members of the executive is the same as, or greater than, the minimum effective membership.
	(3) But subsection (2) does not prevent the regulations from providing that, in those circumstances, an elected executive by-election may be held at the direction of the elected leader of the executive.
	(4) In this section—
	"elected executive by-election" means—
	(a) an election to fill a vacancy in the membership of an elected executive, or(b) an election of a new elected executive because of vacancies in the membership of the current executive;
	but it does not include any election to be held because of a vacancy in the office of elected leader;
	"minimum effective membership" means, in relation to a local authority—
	(a) 3 members of the authority's executive, or(b) if the authority's executive arrangements include provision under paragraph 2A(2B) or (2G) of Schedule 1, the number of members of the authority's executive specified in that provision.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 52
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 18, page 38, line 25, leave out 'members or'.
	No. 218, page 38, line 34, column 2, leave out '2008' and insert '2010'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 56
	 — 
	Appointed councillors

Amendment made: No. 90, page 43, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(4) In exercising a function under or by virtue of this section a parish council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about the exercise of that function.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 59
	 — 
	Community governance reviews

Amendments made: No. 228, page 44, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
	No. 229, page 45, line 1, after 'review', insert '(including any modification of those terms)'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 60
	 — 
	Community governance petitions

Amendments made: No. 230, page 45, line 20, leave out 'proposed recommendations' and insert
	'recommendations which the petitioners wish a community governance review to consider making'.
	No. 231, page 45, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
	No. 232, page 45, line 43, leave out subsection (10).— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 61
	 — 
	Terms of reference of review

Amendment made: No. 233, page 46, line 7, leave out clause 61.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 62
	 — 
	Reorganisation of community governance

Amendments made: No. 91, page 46, line 22, leave out 'authority' and insert 'council'.
	No. 234, page 46, line 32, at end insert—
	'(aa) Part 1 of this Act,'.
	No. 235, page 46, line 33, leave out 'or 26'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 66
	 — 
	Council retained: consequential recommendations

Amendment made: No. 236, page 48, line 15, after 'recommendations', insert 'as'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 68
	 — 
	County, district or London borough: consequential recommendations

Amendments made: No. 237, page 48, line 32, at end insert—
	'(2A) The Electoral Commission may by order give effect to recommendations made under subsection (2).
	(2B) The Electoral Commission must notify each relevant principal council of whether or not the Commission have given effect to recommendations made under subsection (2).
	(2C) If the Electoral Commission have given effect to the recommendations, they must also send each relevant principal council two copies of the order under this section.'.
	No. 238, page 48, line 38, at end insert—
	'"relevant principal council", in relation to recommendations under subsection (2), means—
	(e) the principal council that made the recommendations, and(f) if the recommendations are made by a district council for an area for which there is a county council, the county council.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 69
	 — 
	Duties when undertaking a review

Amendments made: No. 239, page 49, line 16, leave out 'arrangements (other than' and insert 'other arrangements (apart from'.
	No. 240, page 49, line 25, leave out from 'with' to end of line 30 and insert
	'the day on which the council begins the review.'— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 72
	 — 
	Publicising outcome

Amendment made: No. 241, page 51, line 8, at end insert—
	'(2A) The steps taken under subsection (2) must include publication of a notice setting out the matters referred to in subsection (2)(a) and (b).'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 74
	 — 
	Orders and regulations under this Chapter

Amendment made: No. 242, page 52, line 24, at end insert—
	'(7) An order under section 68 may include such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as may appear to the Electoral Commission to be necessary or proper for the purposes of, or in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, the order.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 75
	 — 
	Agreements about incidental matters

Amendment made: No. 19, page 53, line 8, leave out 'Chapter 1 of Part 1 (see section 23)' and insert 'section 16'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 76
	 — 
	Guidance

Amendment made: No. 243, page 53, line 21, leave out 'local authority' and insert 'council'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 78
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 244, page 53, leave out line 26 and insert—
	'(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
	(2) The following expressions have the meanings given—'.
	No. 245, page 54, line 4, at end insert—
	'"petition area" means the area to which a community governance petition relates;'.
	No. 246, page 54, line 10, at end insert—
	'"relevant two-year period", in relation to receipt of a community governance petition, means the period of two years ending with the day on which the petition is received by the principal council;
	"specified recommendations", in relation to a community governance petition, means the recommendations—
	(g) specified in the petition, or(h) treated by section 61 as included in the recommendations specified in the petition;'.
	No. 247, page 54, line 11, at end insert—
	'(3) A principal council "begins" a community governance review when the council publishes the terms of reference of the review.
	(4) A principal council "concludes" a community governance review when the council publishes the notice required by 72(2A).
	(5) A principal council is "in the course of undertaking" a community governance review in the period between—
	(a) beginning the review, and
	(b) concluding the review.
	(6) The terms of reference of a community governance review "allow for a community governance petition to be considered" if the terms of reference of the review are such that—
	(a) the area under review includes the whole of the petition area; and
	(b) the recommendations to be considered by the review include all of the petition's specified recommendations.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 143
	 — 
	Assessment of allegations

Amendments made: No. 61, page 99, line 36, leave out 'section 57B' and insert 'sections 57B and 57BA'.
	No. 62, page 100, line 18, at end insert—
	'57BA Information to be given to subject of allegation
	(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply where a person makes an allegation under section 57A to a standards committee.
	(2) The standards committee must take reasonable steps to give a written summary of the allegation to the person who is the subject of the allegation ("P"); but this is subject to regulations under subsection (7).
	(3) If the standards committee makes a decision under section 57A(2) that no action should be taken in respect of the allegation, it must take reasonable steps to give notice in writing to P of the decision and the reasons for the decision.
	(4) If the standards committee receives a request under section 57B in relation to the allegation, it must take reasonable steps to give notice in writing to P of the request.
	(5) The reference in subsection (3) to a decision under section 57A(2) includes a decision under section 57A(2) as applied by section 57B(4) or 58(3).
	(6) Subsections (2) to (4) are subject to any direction under section 57C.
	(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) provide that in circumstances prescribed by the regulations the duty in subsection (2) does not arise at the time the standards committee receives the allegation, and
	(b) make provision, in relation to cases where that duty has been prevented by the regulations from arising at that time, as to when it does arise.'.
	No. 63, page 100, line 23, leave out 'and 57B(4)' and insert ', 57B(4) and 57BA(2) to (4)'.
	No. 64, page 100, line 35, leave out 'that date' and insert 'then'.
	No. 65, page 100, line 41, leave out 'that date' and insert 'then'.
	No. 66, page 101, line 39, leave out ', to the person who made the allegation,'.
	No. 67, page 101, line 40, at end insert 'to—
	(a) the person who made the allegation, and
	(b) the person who was the subject of the allegation.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 152
	 — 
	Matters referred to monitoring officers

Amendments made: No. 68, page 107, line 24, after '57A' insert 'or 57BA'.
	No. 69, page 107, line 29, leave out '"section"' and insert '"64(2)"'.
	No. 70, page 107, line 31, leave out '57A,".' and insert
	'57A, 60(2) or (3) or 64(2) or (4),".'.
	No. 71, page 107, line 32, leave out '(1)'.
	No. 72, page 107, line 32, at end insert
	'in each of subsections (1) and (7),'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 161
	 — 
	Politically restricted posts: consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 73, page 115, line 18, at end insert—
	'(1A) In Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) (national park authorities), in paragraph 7(4) for "3" substitute "3A".'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 167
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 111, page 119, line 10, at end insert—
	'( ) In Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (Commission for Local Administration in England)—
	(a) in section 25(1) (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (cc) insert—
	"(cd) an authority established for an area in England by an order under section 165 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities);";
	(b) in section 26C(6) (referral of complaints by authorities) (inserted by section (Complaints and matters coming to Commissioners' attention)), at the end insert—
	"(d) in relation to an authority established by an order under section 165 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, a person who may be a member of the authority in accordance with section 166 of that Act."'.
	No. 112, page 119, line 10, at end insert—
	'( ) In Schedule 2 to the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) (accounts subject to audit), in paragraph 1, after paragraph (m) insert—
	"(ma) an authority established for an area in England by an order under section 165 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities);".'.
	No. 113, page 119, line 20, at end insert—
	'( ) In section 23(1) of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) (definition of local authority), after paragraph (n) insert—
	"(na) an authority established for an area in England by an order under section 165 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities);".'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 189
	 — 
	Orders, regulation and guidance

Amendments made: No. 219, page 135, line 20, at end insert—
	'(1A) Any order made by the Electoral Commission under this Act must be made by statutory instrument'.
	No. 114, page 135, line 21, after '168' insert
	', (Entities controlled etc by local authorities), (Definitions of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales)'.
	No. 115, page 135, line 23, leave out 'under section 168,' and insert
	'made by the Welsh Ministers under section 168, (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) or (Definitions of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales),'.—  [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 189
	 — 
	Orders, regulation and guidance

Amendments made: No. 220, page 135, line 30, leave out 'or 32' and insert
	', (Resolution for whole-council elections: requirements), (Resolution for elections by halves: requirements) or (Resolution for elections by thirds: requirements)'.
	No. 221, page 135, line 40, after 'only', insert—
	'(a) an order made by the Electoral Commission, or'.
	No. 116, page 136, line 14, leave out from 'under' to 'may' in line 15 and insert 'this Act'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 191
	 — 
	Financial provisions

Amendment made: No. 55, page 136, line 23, at end insert—
	'( ) The Secretary of State may pay to the Arts Council of England and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council such sums as he may determine in respect of their expenses under or by virtue of this Act.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 193
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: No. 117, page 136, line 39 leave out 'and (3)' and insert 'to (4)'.
	No. 118, page 137, line 2, leave out 'or 167' and insert ', 167 or 188'.
	No. 119, page 137, line 2, after 'Schedule 1,' insert '(Elections: consequential amendments),'.
	No. 120, page 137, line 2, after second '14' insert ', 15'.
	No. 121, page 137, line 3, at end insert—
	'(4) The repeal made by paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities) and the entry in Part 13A of Schedule 15 relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (c. 64) extends to England and Wales and to Scotland.'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Clause 194
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 222, page 137, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	'(1) This section and sections 189, 191, 193 and 195 come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.
	No. 223, page 137, line 17, leave out 'so far as not brought into force by subsection (1)'.
	No. 224, page 137, line 18, leave out 'so far as not brought into force by subsection (1)'.
	No. 56, page 137, line 19, leave out 'except section 91' and insert
	'(except section 91), Part 4A of Schedule 15 and section 190 so far as relating to that Part of that Schedule'.
	No. 122, page 137, line 22, at end insert—
	'sections (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) to (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) and (consequential amendments)(3) and (4);'.
	No. 225, page 137, line 37, leave out subsection (6).— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	'Elections: consequential amendments

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
	1 (1) Section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (assistants for political groups) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (11), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "appropriate year", for "one in relation to which provision for whole council elections has been made by virtue of section 7(4)(a) or 26(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972" substitute "subject to whole council elections by virtue of Part 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007".'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2
	 — 
	'The Commission for Local Administration in England: minor and consequential amendments
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Part 3 of Local Government Act 1974

1 Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7) (Commission for Local Administration in England) is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
	2 In section 23(12) (three-yearly reviews by the Commission), for "complaints" substitute "matters".
	3 (1) Section 26 (matters subject to investigation) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6), for "person aggrieved" (in each place) substitute "person affected".
	(3) In subsection (6A), for "any action taken in connection with the discharge by an authority" substitute "any action taken by or on behalf of an authority in the exercise".
	(4) In subsection (7), in paragraphs (aa), (a) (in both places) and (ba), for "complaint" substitute "matter".
	(5) Omit subsection (10) (Local Commissioners' discretion to investigate matters etc).
	(6) In subsection (11)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for "person aggrieved" substitute "person affected";
	(b) omit paragraph (b).
	(7) Omit subsections (12) and (13) (restrictions on investigating matters arising before specified dates).
	4 (1) Section 28 (payments to complainants and persons assisting with investigations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint" substitute "investigate a matter under this Part of this Act";
	(b) after "who is alleged in the complaint" insert "(if any), or who otherwise appears to the Local Commissioner,";
	(c) for "the action complained of" substitute "the action which would be the subject of the investigation";
	(d) for "any allegations contained in the complaint" substitute "the matter".
	(3) In subsection (2), for "such investigation" substitute "investigation under this Part of this Act".
	(4) In subsection (3)—
	(a) after "the complaint" insert "(if any)";
	(b) omit the words following paragraph (b).
	(5) In subsection (4)—
	(a) after "the authority concerned" insert "or any other person";
	(b) for "that authority" substitute "the authority concerned or any other person".
	5 (1) Section 29 (further provisions about investigations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (6), omit "with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service".
	(3) In subsection (8), for "or any officer of the Commission assisting in the performance" substitute "or any person discharging or assisting in the discharge".
	6 (1) Section 31A (consideration of adverse reports) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (1) to (2A) substitute—
	"(1A) Where a further report of a Local Commissioner under section 31(2A) is considered by a person other than the appropriate listed authority and it is proposed that—
	(a) no action should be taken on the report, or
	(b) the action recommended in the report should not be taken,
	consideration of the report shall be referred to that authority.
	(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
	(a) "listed authority" means an authority mentioned in section 25(1) or specified in an order under subsection 25(2) (but does not include a person mentioned in section 25(4) to (5)), and
	(b) a listed authority is the appropriate listed authority in relation to a further report if the report relates to the authority (or to any person with which the authority is connected for the purposes of this Part of this Act by virtue of section 25(4) to (5)).
	(1C) Subsection (1A) has effect subject to subsection (3)."
	(3) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "subsections (1) and (2)" substitute "subsection (1A)";
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "the said section 101, or" substitute "section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972,";
	(c) for paragraph (b) substitute—
	"(b) a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, or
	(c) an admission appeal panel or exclusion appeal panel mentioned in section 25(5)(c) or (e),
	and the report is considered by that committee or panel."
	(4) In subsection (5), for the words from the beginning to "shall vote" substitute "No individual shall decide or vote".
	(5) Omit subsections (5A) and (6).
	(6) In subsection (7)—
	(a) omit "Where the authority concerned is the Greater London Authority,";
	(b) for "the Authority" substitute "the Greater London Authority";
	(c) for "the authority concerned (other than references to a member of the authority concerned)" substitute "an authority".
	7 (1) Section 32 (law of defamation and disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(a), for "any officer of the Commission" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner".
	(3) In subsection (1)(b)—
	(a) for "any officer of the Commission" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner";
	(b) after "a complainant" insert ", or with the person affected in relation to a matter,".
	(4) In subsection (1)(d), for "section 24" substitute "section 23A".
	(5) After subsection (1)(e) insert—
	"(f) the publication of any matter by inclusion in a report, statement or summary published or supplied under section 31B."
	(6) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "any officer of the Commission" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner";
	(b) in paragraph (a), for "report to be made under section 30 or 31" insert "report, statement or summary under section 30, 31 or 31B";
	(c) in paragraph (b), for "an officer of the Commission" substitute "a person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of Local Commissioner";
	(d) in the words following paragraph (c), for "the officers of the Commission" substitute "persons discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner".
	(7) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "any of the authorities mentioned in section 25(1) above" substitute "any of the authorities to which this Part of this Act applies";
	(b) for "any member of the staff of the Commission who is allocated to assist him" substitute "any person discharging or assisting in the discharge of a function of a Local Commissioner".
	(8) After subsection (3A) (inserted by section 138) insert—
	"(3B) Section 25(4), (4A) and (5) do not apply for the purpose of subsection (3)."
	8 (1) Section 33 (consultation with other Commissioners etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "the complaint relates partly to" substitute "the matters which are the subject of the investigation include";
	(b) for "about the complaint and" substitute "about the matter and, where a complaint was made about the matter, he shall".
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "a complaint under this Part of this Act" substitute "a matter under investigation under this Part of this Act";
	(b) for "any matter relating to the complaint" substitute "anything relating to the matter";
	(c) in paragraph (a), for "complaint" substitute "matter".
	9 In section 34(1) (interpretation of Part)—
	(a) in the definition of "member", omit paragraphs (b) and (c);
	(b) for the definition of "person aggrieved" substitute—
	""person affected"—
	(c) in relation to a matter which is the subject of a complaint made or to be made under this Part of this Act, means the member of the public who claims or is alleged to have sustained injustice in consequence of the matter, and(d) in relation to a matter coming to the attention of a Local Commissioner to which section 26D applies, means the member of the public who the Local Commissioner considers has, or may have, sustained injustice in consequence of the matter;".
	10 (1) Schedule 4 (the Commission) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 3 (remuneration etc of Commissioners and their officers)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1) omit ", with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service,";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2) omit ", with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service,".
	(3) In paragraph 4—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for "complaints" substitute "matters";
	(b) omit sub-paragraph (5).
	11 In Schedule 5 (matters not subject to investigation), in paragraphs 2, 6, 7 and 8, after "taken by" insert "or on behalf of".

Part 2
	 — 
	Other minor and consequential amendments

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)
	12 (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 5 (reports of monitoring officer), in subsection (2)(b), for "injustice" substitute "failure".
	(3) In section 5A (reports of monitoring officer - local authorities operating executive arrangements), in subsection (3)(b), for "injustice" substitute "failure".
	 Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
	13 In section 73(6) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (monitoring officer), for "injustice" substitute "failure".
	 Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22)
	14 (1) The Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 62 (further provisions about investigations by ethical standards officers), in subsection (7)(b) for "by any members or officers of the Commission for Local Administration in England" substitute "obtained in connection with investigations under Part 3 of that Act (Commission for Local Administration in England)".
	(3) In section 67(2) (consultation by Local Commissioners with ethical standards officers)—
	(a) for "the complaint relates" substitute "the matters which are the subject of the investigation relate";
	(b) after "about the investigation and" insert ", where a complaint was made about the matter, he may".
	 Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43)
	15 In section 114 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (complaints about social services), in subsection (5)(a) for "(and to be treated as if it had been duly made under section 26 of that Act)" substitute "(and for the complaint to be treated as satisfying sections 26A and 26B of that Act)".'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3
	 — 
	'Consequential amendments relating to entities controlled etc by local authorities

Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (c. 64)
	1 (1) Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (interpretation etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)—
	(a) after "United Kingdom)" insert "and any entity which is under the control of a local authority or jointly controlled by bodies that include a local authority";
	(b) omit the words from "and companies" to "local authorities".
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
	"an entity under the control of a local authority", and
	"an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include a local authority",
	have the meanings given for the purposes of that subsection by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007."
	 Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
	2 (1) Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 (disqualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (aa) substitute—
	"(aa) holds any employment in an entity which is under the control of the local authority; or".
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) In subsection (1)(aa) as it applies in relation to a local authority in England, the reference to an entity under the control of the local authority has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(3B) In subsection (1)(aa) as it applies in relation to a local authority in Wales, that reference has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	 Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)
	3 (1) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 98 (disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State)—
	(a) in subsection (8)(d)—
	(i) for "bodies" substitute "authorities";
	(ii) for the words from "a company" to the end substitute "an entity which is under the control of that body, subject to its influence or jointly controlled by it and one or more other bodies";
	(b) in subsection (8A) for "bodies" substitute "authorities".
	(3) In section 100 (interpretation etc of Part 10)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words from "a company" to "interests)" substitute "an entity which is under the control of that body, subject to its influence or jointly controlled by it and one or more other bodies";
	(b) after subsection (1) insert—
	"(1ZA) In relation to a body in England to whom this Part of this Act applies, references in this Part to—
	(a) an entity under the control of the body,
	(b) an entity subject to the influence of the body, and
	(c) an entity jointly controlled by the body and one or more other bodies,
	have the meanings given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(1ZB) In relation to a body in Wales to whom this Part of this Act applies, those references have the meanings given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	 Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
	4 (1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995 (National Park authorities) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (2) for the words from "a company" to the end substitute "an entity which is under the control of that authority".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(4A) In sub-paragraph (2) as it applies in relation to a National Park authority in England, the reference to an entity under the control of the authority has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(4B) In sub-paragraph (2) as it applies in relation to a National Park authority in Wales, that reference has the meaning given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	 Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26)
	5 (1) The Local Government Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 18 (local authority companies etc)—
	(a) in subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (a) insert "and", and for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—
	"(b) an entity which is, or the trustees of a trust which is—
	(i) under the control of a local authority or Passenger Transport Executive,
	(ii) subject to the influence of such an authority or Executive, or
	(iii) jointly controlled by bodies that include such an authority or Executive."
	(b) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) The references in subsection (2)(b) to—
	(a) "an entity under the control of" and "a trust under the control of" a local authority or Passenger Transport Executive,
	(b) "an entity subject to the influence of" and "a trust subject to the influence of" such an authority or Executive, and
	(c) "an entity jointly controlled by bodies that include" and "a trust jointly controlled by bodies that include" such an authority or Executive,
	have the meanings given by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007."
	(3) The provision in section 24 of that Act (Wales) is renumbered subsection (1) of that section, and after that provision there is inserted—
	"(2) In its application to Wales, section 18 has effect as if—
	(a) any reference to a Passenger Transport Executive were omitted, and
	(b) for the reference in subsection (2A) to section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: England) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 there were substituted a reference to section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of that Act."
	(4) In section 95 (power to trade in function-related activities through a company)—
	(a) in subsection (4) omit the words from "within" to the end;
	(b) for subsections (5) and (6) substitute—
	"(5) An order under section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (regulation of entities controlled etc by local authorities) may include provision applying any of the provisions of that order, with or without modifications—
	(a) to a company through which a relevant authority which is not a local authority for the purposes of that section exercises or proposes to exercise powers conferred by order under this section; or
	(b) to such a relevant authority, or members or officers of such a relevant authority, in relation to such a company.
	(6) Any requirement or prohibition imposed on or in relation to a company by virtue of subsection (5) must relate to the doing for a commercial purpose of the thing to which the order under this section relates.";
	(c) in subsection (7), before the definition of "ordinary functions" insert—
	""company" means—
	(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006; or(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969,".
	(5) In subsection 96(5) (definition of "company") for the words from "Part 5" to the end substitute "section 95".
	(6) In section 100(2)(a) (exercise of powers by reference to authorities' performance categories), for the words from "section 70" to the end substitute "section (Entities controlled etc by local authorities) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007".
	 Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23)
	6 (1) Section 48 of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (permitted methods of publishing information) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)(a) for "a local authority company" substitute "an entity under the control of a local authority".
	(3) For subsections (5) and (6) substitute—
	"(5) In subsection (3) "an entity under the control of a local authority" has the meaning given for the purposes of that subsection by order under section (Definition of certain terms for purposes of other enactments: Wales) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
	(6) But the Welsh Ministers may direct that an entity, or entities of a particular description, are to be treated as not being under the control of a local authority for the purposes of subsection (3).
	(7) A direction under subsection (6) may be given so as to apply—
	(a) for a period specified in the direction; or
	(b) subject to conditions so specified.
	(8) A direction under subsection (6) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction under that subsection.
	(9) In subsection (6) "entity" means any entity, whether or not a legal person."'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	New arrangements for executives: further Amendments

Amendment made: No. 57, page 145, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
	'(2) The executive arrangements may include provision specifying the number of members (including the elected leader) who are to be elected to the executive in accordance with section 11(3A) (the "specified membership").
	(2A) The specified membership—
	(a) must be 3 or more, but
	(b) must not be greater than the maximum number of members of the elected executive (as determined under section 11(8) or regulations under section 11(9)).
	(2B) If the specified membership is 4 or more, the executive arrangements may also include provision specifying the number of members of the executive that is to be the minimum effective membership for the purposes of section 41(2).
	(2C) The minimum effective membership that is specified—
	(a) must be the same as, or smaller than, the specified membership, but
	(b) must not be smaller than 3.
	(2D) The executive arrangements may include provision specifying—
	(a) the minimum number of members (including the elected leader) who are to be elected to the executive in accordance with section 11(3A) (the "specified minimum membership"), and
	(b) the maximum number of members (including the elected leader) who are to be elected to the executive in accordance with section 11(3A) (the "specified maximum membership").
	(2E) The specified minimum membership must be 3 or more.
	(2F) The specified maximum membership must not be more than the maximum number of members of the elected executive (as determined under section 11(8) or regulations under section 11(9)).
	(2G) If the specified minimum membership is 4 or more, the executive arrangements may also include provision specifying the number of members of the executive that is to be the minimum effective membership for the purposes of section 41(2).
	(2H) The minimum effective membership that is specified—
	(a) must be the same as, or smaller than, the specified minimum membership, but
	(b) must not be smaller than 3.
	(2I) The executive arrangements may not include provision under sub-paragraph (2) and provision under sub-paragraph (2D).'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Schedule 4
	 — 
	New arrangements for executives: transitional provision

Amendment made: No. 226, page 146, line 34 column 2, leave out '2007' and insert '2009'.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Schedule 8
	 — 
	Best value: minor and consequential Amendments

Amendment made: No. 74, page 160, line 40, at end insert—
	 'Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20)
	23A In section 54 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (performance directions), for subsection (1) substitute—
	"(1) The Secretary of State may give a direction to the Authority—
	(a) specifying factors ("performance indicators") by reference to which the Authority's performance in exercising functions can be measured;
	(b) specifying standards ("performance standards") to be met by the Authority in relation to performance indicators specified under paragraph (a).
	(1A) In specifying performance indicators and performance standards, and in deciding whether to do so, the Secretary of State shall aim to promote improvement of the way in which the functions of the Authority are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
	(1B) A direction under subsection (1) may specify different performance indicators or performance standards—
	(a) for different functions;
	(b) to apply at different times.
	(1C) The Secretary of State may give a direction to the Authority requiring the Authority to—
	(a) specify performance indicators in relation to functions;
	(b) set targets for the performance of functions ("performance targets") by reference to performance indicators specified under paragraph (a) or subsection (1)(a);
	(c) set a plan of action to be taken for the purposes of meeting a performance target.".'— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Schedule 15
	 — 
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 227, page 183, line 38, column 2, leave out '8(2)(c)' and insert '8(2) and (3)'.
	No. 58, page 184, line 8, at end insert—

'Part 4A
	 — 
	Community strategies

Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) Section 6(5) and (6). 
			  Section 7(2) and (6).'. 
		
	
	No. 124, page 184, line 13, at end insert—
	
		
			 'National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Act 2006 (c. 43) In Schedule 1, paragraph 206.'. 
		
	
	No. 59, page 188, line 31, in column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  'In section 40(1), the words "(other than registered social landlords in Wales)". 
			  Section 41A(1A).'. 
		
	
	No. 60, page 189, line 6, in column 2, leave out 'paragraph 31(a)' and insert 'paragraphs 27(2)(b), 29(2) and 31'.
	No. 125, page 189, line 31, in column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  'In section 25— 
			  (a) in subsection (4A), paragraphs (b) and (c); 
			  (b) subsection (4B). 
			  In section 26— 
			  (a) subsections (2) to (4); 
			  (b) subsection (10); 
			  (c) subsection (11)(b) (together with the "and" immediately preceding it); 
			  (d) subsections (12) and (13). 
			  Section 27(2). 
			  In section 28(3), the words following paragraph (b). 
			  In section 29(6), the words "with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service". 
			  In section 31A— 
			  (a) subsection (5A); 
			  (b) subsection (6); 
			  (c) in subsection (7), the words "Where the authority concerned is the Greater London Authority,". 
			  In section 34(1), in the definition of "member", paragraphs (b) and (c).'. 
		
	
	No. 126, page 189, line 32 in column 2, after 'Schedule 4' insert—
	
		
			  '(a) in paragraph 1(1)(b), the words "or is a member (by co-option) of a committee of any of those authorities"; 
			  (b) in paragraph 3(1), the words ", with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service,"; 
			  (c) in sub-paragraph 3(2), the words ", with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service,"; 
			  (d) '. 
		
	
	No. 127, page 189, line 32, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) In Schedule 3, paragraph 5(2), (3), (6) and (7).' 
		
	
	No. 128, page 189, line 34, at end insert—
	
		
			 'Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) In Schedule 7, paragraph 18(3). 
			 Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) In Schedule 18, paragraph 16(3).' 
		
	
	No. 129, page 189, line 38, in column 2, at end insert—
	
		
			  '(  ) paragraph 13(2), (3) and (4);'. 
		
	
	No. 130, page 190, line 24, at end insert—

'Part 13A
	 — 
	Entities controlled etc by local authorities

Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (c. 64) In section 4(2), the words from "and companies" to "local authorities". 
			 Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) Part 5. 
			  
			 Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) In section 95(4), the words from "within" to the end.'. 
		
	
	 —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I start by reassuring the House that the significant number of Government amendments that have just been passed came about not as a result of sloppy workmanship on our part, but because of the desirability of accommodating many points made on both sides in Committee. Secondly, I would like to thank Members for their contribution to the scrutiny and improvement of the Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
	It is worth reminding the House that this was the first Bill to pass through the evidence-taking process and I should like to put on record—I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee—our thanks to the witnesses who provided both written and oral evidence. It turned out to be very helpful in informing the Committee's deliberations and was often referred to in debate. As I said, changes to the Bill have largely been the result of the good work done in Committee. I hope that we can move forward in that spirit.
	I should also like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), for her work on the Bill and for her support, which has been invaluable. I have learned a lot about Essex, particularly about women from Essex—but I shall go no further on that point. Suffice it to say that champagne moments have a different meaning in different parts of the country— [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill): at least someone is keeping up and has a good sense of humour. Perhaps he and I have a peculiar sense of humour, but I shall move on swiftly.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
	"The Bill implements the majority of the proposals set out in 'Strong and prosperous communities', the local government White Paper, which was published in October."—[ Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1144.]
	That White Paper was the result of exhaustive consultation, which was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and his team back in 2004, and then taken forward in informing the report of Sir Michael Lyons as well as our debates on the Bill.
	We believe that the Bill is radical and devolutionary, setting out a new statutory framework for local councils and a new relationship between central and local government—not just between my Department and councils, but between Whitehall and councils. It sets out a new relationship between local government and its partner organisations at the local level, many of which are local agents of Government Departments.
	Crucially, the Bill sets out a new relationship between local government and its partners and the people who live in the relevant local area. It allows local authorities and their partners to work together in delivering the full range of local services in an area. As such, it represents a new, modern take on public service reform. It joins up government at the local level, which is where the citizen requires it to be joined up. It takes forward key themes of joining up local services and giving local authorities greater freedom to develop their own solutions. I believe that this is the most devolutionary local government reform Bill for many years.
	Also crucially, the Bill is not just about local government reform. It places two new measures on the statute book. The first is the duty on local government agencies and public sector organisations to co-operate in reaching local area agreement targets with the council. The second, achieved through clause 108, is an insistence on devolution—or what has been described as double devolution—in respect of the duty to inform, to involve and to consult. In my view, those two statutory measures change the structure and, even more importantly, the climate of local government, which has been welcomed. I also believe that that is why the Bill has, on the whole, commanded support across the political parties in the Local Government Association.
	The Bill says to local councils, "Don't ask Whitehall's permission to get on and do things. Get on and do it, unless Parliament and the Government say otherwise." That will require a culture change in the leadership and management of local authorities, as well as structural and financial changes. I could point to a number of devolutionary measures in the Bill that we have debated. Of course, these measures need to be considered in the context of the debate on the Sustainable Communities Bill that is taking place in time provided for private Members' Bills, and in the context of the planning White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced yesterday.
	This Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill introduces reforms on the scrutiny of policy and the delivery of health services. Crucially, it is a Bill about the involvement of local government in health. It reverses the trend of 50 to 60 years of health services and local government moving away from each other, and brings them closer together. That is what the patient, the resident, the citizen—call them what you will—requires. The public do not distinguish between structures and organisations; they want services that deliver. There is strong evidence that the Bill is radical, devolutionary and pro-local government, and that it puts trust in local government and requires central Government to change their attitude. It is important to emphasise that the new performance regime for local authorities that will replace the comprehensive performance assessment will involve a regime of targets that are set locally. Different targets will be applied in different areas to reflect the realities of the differences in geography, economics and culture in those areas.
	I look forward to the deliberations on the Bill in the other place, and to taking forward these measures and the other proposals in the White Paper to change the balance of power in this country from the centre to local areas in a way that I believe is irreversible.

Alistair Burt: I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the way in which he and his colleagues have taken the Bill through. It was a good Committee, in which we had the opportunity to debate the issues that mattered and to see some changes, while still leaving room for improvement, which enables the Opposition to do their job of chasing the Government a bit harder on things that we believe could be done better. It would be right to acknowledge the spirit in which the Bill has been carried forward, perhaps starting with the witness sessions, which gave us all an opportunity to handle the material in a different way. That was good for Parliament. Some consideration needs to be given to the procedure in that regard; perhaps more time needs to be allowed to get witnesses in place, for example. We were a bit rushed, between the publication of the White Paper and the Bill, but those are minor issues compared with the other matters that we have dealt with.
	I should also like to thank my colleagues who have played such a stalwart role, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who shouldered so much of the burden. Our colleagues on the Back Benches, my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), contributed a great deal to the proceedings. Although he is not here at the moment, I must also acknowledge the extraordinary presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is a champagne moment all on his own. He contributed not only to the able whipping of the business—with the help of his colleague, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), whose contribution to making the wheels turn smoothly we also acknowledge—but to some of the key debates. In particular, we will remember the Lichfield crown jewels for some considerable time. We appreciated his contribution.
	Is the Bill devolutionary or not? Yes, it is, but the question is whether it is devolutionary enough in the context of the relationship between central and local government. That relationship has changed, and we suspect that there is a demand out there for much more change. The Bill is a move in the right direction, but we think that it does not move far enough in certain respects. It is on that basis that we have divided the House in the past, and it is on that basis that we have made our anxieties felt this evening.
	It is true that the Bill will need to be considered in the light of the Sustainable Communities Bill, which we believe provides an even more radical model for devolution. We shall be interested to see how far the Government allow it to proceed before pulling the plug, as they inevitably will. In any event, its progress presents a contrast to the way in which this Bill has proceeded, and the ultimate outcome will say much about where local government is going.
	There have been some welcome developments. On what may not have been the best day for the Minister and his colleagues in terms of U-turns, this is a slightly happier occasion on which to celebrate one or two more U-turns. We are pleased that the directions on restructuring were introduced after we had asked for a degree of limitation on what appeared to be very extensive powers. It took a while, but they finally appeared. It was a shame that the sheer pressure of work and the guillotine meant that we could not deal with them last week, but we appreciated the important concessions that were made—for instance, the concession over the additional partners to be involved in local area agreements, particularly health bodies. We also welcome the enhanced role for local councillors, and the work that has been done on parishes. I think that most members of the Committee could agree on those measures.
	If I am true to myself and the Opposition, however, I must identify the respects in which we think the Bill fails the devolutionary test. We were never given a chance to debate the big issue of moving powers away from unelected regional bodies to local authorities, which I think remains a blot on the horizon of local government. At some stage that must be faced by the Government, or it will be faced by a different Government.
	Some issues remain in relation to the restructuring of local government that was attempted by means of the Minister's cunningly worded invitations to local authorities up and down the country. Some of those invitations were accepted by certain of our colleagues, but we did not see the total meltdown of Conservative authorities that might have been anticipated, and we are grateful to those colleagues who worked hard to prevent it. However, we still feel strongly about the fact that we did not have an opportunity last week to debate whether there should be a referendum in local areas to give the public a say.
	As we have pointed out before, although the Bill refers to a broad measure of support—or words to that effect—we are not told exactly what that means. I must tell the Minister that I see trouble ahead. When it is a question of how decisions have been made and how a broad measure of support is defined, he will be presented with alternative broad measures of support by competing parties, and contradictory broad measures of support at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow presented a strong case on the referendums held by district councils in Shropshire, and contrasted that with the decision that had been made here. As I say, I see trouble ahead, because the issue of support has not been properly dealt with.
	That is, of course, a subject for the judicial review which is still in progress. I noted that the Secretary of State clung to that judicial review a few hours ago, when she was sitting where the Minister is sitting now. Perhaps there is still time for the Government to cling to it again, and to make amendments clarifying how the public commitment will be judged in relation to the restructuring. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
	We had an extensive discussion in Committee about the executive arrangements. It was repeated tonight, so I will not return to it now. However, I maintain that it might have been better to give local authorities a chance to choose their leadership models rather than having to accept the Minister's restrictive models, and we still believe that local area agreements could do with a limitation on the number of targets. We listened carefully to the Minister's argument about flexibility, but local authorities continue to feel edgy about the lack of an upper limit. We would have liked to table an amendment to bring together the police and local government aspects of the community call for action, but I believe it will be raised in the other place, and I hope that the Minister will consider it further.
	Perhaps the worst part of the Bill is the tagging on of the public health aspects. We will all recall the strength of feeling of witnesses on the abolition of patients forums. The Minister has provided the best defence that he could this evening and in previous discussions. However, it was noticeable that he said a few moments ago that what patients require is the bringing together of local government and health. Well, it was not what they asked for, and it is not what they want. They want a distinctive patient voice, and they think that they have lost that. I still think that the Government have not effectively heard that voice, and this matter will be raised in the Lords.
	There was criticism: concerns were raised that the local involvement networks will not work. That rings bells: the Government have been warned before that changes might not work—and sometimes those warnings turn out to be accurate. I hope that those LINks are looked at again in another place, and that account is taken of the strength of feeling of patients that they are losing a distinctive voice, because the LINks are too big and they might be dominated by health professionals. The Minister might be gaining from the relationship between local government and health, but patients are losing. There might be another way to address these matters, and if there is I urge the Minister to adopt it.

Bob Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not an either/or situation? It would be perfectly possible to strengthen links between local government and health in the way that we discussed in Committee without abolishing the patients forums. In fact, it would in many respects have made good sense and have strengthened the entire arrangement if the patients forums had been able to continue with their work while at the same time scrutiny and overview were improved and the role of the ward councillor in local health service provision were enhanced and strengthened. It need not be an either/or situation.

Alistair Burt: There we are: right at the death, my hon. Friend provides yet another useful contribution, as he has consistently done. It is perfectly sensible to suggest that this might not be an either/or situation. He is right to argue for the keeping of the patient voice. The matter should be looked at again. The Minister must acknowledge that there is some disquiet on Labour Benches. The Bill would be markedly strengthened if changes were made.
	Finally, let me mention the extraordinary story of the amendment signed by 51 Labour Members asking for greater local control over energy efficiency in new developments in their areas which, mysteriously, was not moved—and then not voted on—by any of those 51 Labour Members, some of whom then voted against their own amendment just last week. People have noted that, and it was particularly ironic as only the previous day the Minister for Housing and Planning had made much of the Government's commitment to energy efficiency as the reason for continuing with the home improvement packs. She said how outraged she was that the Opposition were urging caution on HIPs, and that energy was an important issue. However, when there was an opportunity for the Government to vote on an amendment to make sure that energy efficiency was recognised at local level and that standards were driven still higher, they did not take it.
	Having said that, and having pointed out where measures are deficient, I acknowledge that there has been genuine progress. The Local Government Association and councillors agree. We hope that we have made the Bill better through our deliberations and our work. We are sure that the other place will continue to do the same, and when amendments return to the House we hope that the Bill will be further strengthened in the manners that I have suggested.

Peter Soulsby: Listening to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), it is hard to recall now how much scepticism the Opposition expressed about the Bill when it first came before the House. I recall Opposition Members failing to find anything of merit in it. It is interesting and encouraging to hear the difference in tone of the hon. Gentleman's contribution this evening.
	As the Bill progressed, particularly in Committee, many of the sceptics about the Bill—Opposition Members who were sceptical perhaps expressed their scepticism more clearly than the Labour sceptics—were converted to its considerable merits. As the Minister has said, it is undoubtedly devolutionary in its intent. It was indeed very encouraging to hear the support that was given to many of the proposals in the Bill from those who gave evidence to the Committee, and I join others in saying how useful those sittings were. Such evidence sessions are an important innovation.
	For those of us who have been involved in local government over many years, the Bill does not yet go far enough. Of course, the major issue of restoring to local government the power that comes with greater control over raising its own revenue is yet to come, but—to use the mantra that the Minister has used on several occasions—such reform is a marathon, not a sprint. We look forward to some of the later stages in progress towards that goal of a continued increase in the powers and responsibilities of local government and the local democratic institutions of which it is a part.
	I welcome the elements in the Bill that strengthen the scrutiny role of front-line councillors, as we now call those who used to be back benchers. The Bill will do much to give them a genuine role of scrutiny and enable them not only to look at the work that their local authority is doing, but to have a wider scrutiny role over what is happening across the whole of their community and all the bodies that affect the lives of those who elected them. I also welcome the elements of the Bill that seek to empower local government to provide wider community leadership beyond just the services that it provides, and I welcome the lifting and rationalisation of the heavy burdens of targets and inspections that local government of all political persuasion has suffered in recent years.
	The Bill has to be seen in the context of the work that the Government are doing to seek to provide incentives for and remove barriers to serving on local councils. If the Bill is to achieve its full effect it needs councillors from all parties of sufficient calibre to enable them to serve their local communities and take full advantage of what is being given to them as part of this Bill. I also wish to set in a wider context the work that the Government are doing with local authorities to develop multi-area agreements, especially the work—of vital importance for cities such as mine, which have very constrained boundaries—to enable them to work across boundaries to develop city development companies. Such companies will be able to help solve the problems of tightly constrained urban areas in a wider context.
	The Bill, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge, is an important step forward. It is only one step forward, but it is especially welcome that it has been brought forward with such a high level of engagement with local government itself in the shaping of the legislation. I look forward to more steps being taken in the marathon that lies ahead.

Andrew Stunell: I start by offering my thanks to the ministerial team, who were as obliging as they could be within the constraints they set themselves. They have at all times been as helpful and courteous as they could be.
	We all found the evidence session interesting and stimulating. There are lessons to be learned about the organisation of such sessions, but that point leads me to offer thanks to a part of the organisation that is often not mentioned—the Government Whip for the Committee. From that point onwards, he did his best to be helpful and allow the Opposition the chances we needed to test the Government and set out our case, in Committee and on Report. My colleagues who supported me on the Bill also did stout work, and I thank them.
	The broader context of the Bill is that it was preceded by a White Paper and a lot of talk by Secretaries of State about direction and speed of travel that has now been mostly forgotten. We believe that the Bill that was published was a wasted opportunity. It was not well timed, it being out of sync with the Lyons report. As a result, it does not deal with some very fundamental questions of finance and structure.
	It has been claimed that the tone of Opposition criticism has moderated during the Bill's passage through the House, but any Bill that is 192 pages long will contain at least one bit that is acceptable to us, and so it has proved. I have never denied that it has some good bits, but it does not provide the fundamental devolution of power, financial resources or freedom to organise that we consider essential. On the contrary, the Bill seems to offer a narrower frame in those respects than what we had previously.
	We have gained some important new jargon, of course. We no longer talk about back-bench councillors, but about front-line councillors. They are the ones who get sent over the top and shot first, and many of them think that life might be a bit cosier on the back benches. The phrase "place shaping" suggests a degree of proactivity on the part of councils, even though—despite what Ministers have said at various stages—the capacity to place-shape will still be dramatically confined, controlled and limited.
	In some areas, such as the executive arrangements, the Bill represents an increase in centralised grasp. The Minister heard Opposition Members go on about that frequently in Committee, and he knows that he has taken away one of the available models. I accept that he might argue that it was non-functional, but he has put in place another model that looks likely to be demonstrably non-functional and that only Stockton appears to want. It will not give local authorities the freedom to organise themselves as they think best and as would suit them best.
	The same point can be made about the changes to the monitoring of health. I suppose that I should declare a long lapsed interest, as some 20 years ago I was a member of a community health council. I know that many Labour Members regret the loss of community health councils; the establishment of patients forums was very much a second-best alternative. They were introduced only because of the pressure that the Government experienced in their struggle to get community health councils out of the way. Now, patients forums are being taken away too, and we have taken a step further backwards. There are clear signs of centralisation lurking behind the face of devolution about which the Minister has spoken.
	The Bill does have some good bits, however, and we have made favourable comments about some of them. The reform of the Standards Board, the enhanced role for local members and the greater freedom to make electoral arrangements that suit a local community are all to be welcomed. If the local area partnerships and the multi-area agreements can develop, they could represent two very useful steps forward.
	However, there is still plenty more to be done. I said earlier on Report that we had got the Minister out of the front door on his journey, but we still have not got him far enough down the path and along the street in the direction that we believe he should take. As a result, we shall not support the Bill on Third Reading.

Andrew Gwynne: As the Minister knows, I come from a local government background and am proud to have served 11 years on Tameside council, where we can really make a difference locally every day in a way that MPs can only dream about. The sad thing is that people do not recognise what local government does and how its functions directly affect their lives on a day-to-day basis.
	The Bill is a good one, and we have made it better. We have answered the now infamous Tameside question—the people of Dukinfield and Audenshaw will sleep tonight—and we have won the battle for thirds, too. The Bill is devolutionary in nature and the changes that we made in Committee and on Report show that Ministers listened, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their listening role.
	I hope that the changes we have made will improve the operation of our councils, bring about more accountability and better co-ordination with our partners through local area agreements and strategic partnerships, and improve the scrutiny functions. There will be a real role for councillors to hold to account the NHS, the partners, local trusts, such as Stockport Sports Trust, as well as council departments. The most important part of councillors' new role, and a point that we have skated over, is that they will hold to account their cabinet colleagues.
	I hope, too, that the changes will increase people's recognition of the hard work of all councillors, whether executive or front-line members, and of the work of local authorities more generally. As a consequence, I hope there will be increased participation at local elections.
	I am ever the optimist—I live in hope—and I wish the Bill a safe passage to the other place.

Robert Key: Many of us did not serve on the Committee but nevertheless retain a strong interest in the Bill's passage. We have had all the debates and all the votes—except one. There were not as many debates or votes as we wanted; in fact, because of the guillotine—sorry, programme motion—I was deprived of making on Report the only speech I wanted to make about the Bill.
	Many of us know that the Bill represents a substantial shift. For local government veterans in Parliament such as me, who served as a local government finance Minister in the days when I had to propose that shocking thing, compulsory competitive tendering, things have moved a lot. We are nowhere near the continental model of local government—giving people carte blanche at local level—nevertheless we are going in the right direction, although I wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and his team that the localisation agenda is still only an agenda and will have to be made a reality by a future Conservative Government.
	The only reason I shall vote against the Bill is that I find one aspect of it completely contradictory. With an agenda for turning government around, towards more power to local government, there is none the less a power that will deprive my constituents of their rights and their local democratic representation. No Member of the House should be indifferent to local government. I pay tribute to councillors of all parties who give up hours of their time and effort for local government. What an irony that in my constituency of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire the county is making a bid for unitary status, to take democracy away from local people and move it way up-county to somewhere completely remote. Decisions on local issues will be made by councillors 50 miles away who know nothing about them. That is good enough reason for me to vote against the Bill. Yes, it contains some good things, but many of us think that there will be a lot of work to be done by an incoming Conservative Government.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to be called to speak on Third Reading. I agree with many of the other speakers that we have passed a thoroughly enjoyable four months—indeed, four months today—since Second Reading. The Committee proceedings were stimulating and certainly fun; we cannot always say that of the some of the Bills that go through this place. I look forward to cashing in some of the champagne moments that have been only theoretical so far—Ministers and Opposition spokesmen will be held to account if those moments do not become reality within a reasonable period.
	My colleagues on the Labour Benches who have already spoken on Third Reading have rightly concentrated on the local government aspect of the Bill—it is after all a local government Bill and many of my colleagues are well versed and experienced in local government. But I want for a moment to think about what the Bill does from the point of view of the governed and the communities that we and our local government colleagues serve. Those communities have the potential to take great steps forward—in terms of participative democracy in particular—as a result of the Bill.
	In many parts of the Bill, there is an implicit recognition of the role of the voluntary sector and the community sector in representing communities. That is not the same role as councillors have; it is a complementary one. I do not want to get into an argument about Wiltshire, but perhaps the answer to the concerns of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) is the strengthening of local area agreements. Making sure that different service providers work together towards common aims and goals, and share the necessary practical and administrative facilities, has great potential. Services do not have to be delivered identically in every community. They have to recognise the needs of those communities at a local level. In years to come, we will look back at the partnerships that are inherent in the Bill and say that the Bill was good because of the changes that were made.
	Another reason the Bill enhances local democracy is that it extends public scrutiny. We have seen the scrutiny system in local government mature over recent years. It has become a force to reckon with and has shown itself capable of holding local authorities to account. The provision of social care is one of the roles of local authorities, but over recent years we have seen a blurring of the border between health and social care. It is therefore essential that we produce a vehicle that can extend the scrutiny over the grey border between health and social care. The way to do that is through the mature scrutiny functions of local authorities and the experience of patients. I am thinking of the sheer commitment that many patients have shown through their involvement with community health councils and forums. I am sure that, in a few years' time, we will see that in the local involvement networks as well. As I said in Committee, abolition is a dirty word, but actually it is just part of a process that will bring together health and social care with the support of the scrutiny that local authorities can give. But, essentially, it will be a voluntary organisation—more than likely—that will co-ordinate LINks and make sure that patients are properly represented.
	We are also seeing greater powers and responsibilities for councillors. It is not just their scrutiny role that is enhanced; there is also their role as facilitators and champions of their community—people who work with their community organisations rather than against them, as some councillors do. I am talking about being part of the same process, and working through the community call for action and some of the other facilities in the Bill to make sure that people who draw attention to the issues that are important in different streets and communities get their voices heard. In a limited way, there are even powers to choose whether there are thirds elections or all-out elections. That has been a minor success, but a success none the less, showing that scrutiny in this place works too.
	The Bill is about making things happen in communities. It is about trusting local people, involving local people and serving local people—not just through councillors and local government, but through the other organisations that hold our communities together and provide the glue and the fabric that make society work. In that sense, it is no exaggeration to say that we will look back on this Bill in a few years' time and say, "That was when it was recognised that communities, voluntary groups and others could come together with local authorities and councillors as partners, working with other public sector providers to make sure that there is a coherent, sensitive provision of local services that complement each other and make life in communities better."

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

human fertilisation and embryology

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Quality and Safety) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 25th April, be approved. —[ Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

human tissue

That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.— [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Hospice (North-West Leicestershire)

David Taylor: I have been privileged today to welcome a party of constituents to the Palace of Westminster. Their mission has been to promote the case for an adult hospice in North-West Leicestershire. The first part of the day was to discuss the topic with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), chairman of the all-party hospice and palliative care group. The second was to lobby the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). I am grateful to my colleagues for the time that they gave. The third and final part is for me to present this petition.
	The signatories include Dorothy Lacey MBE, Carol Smith, Kate Last, Loraine Liddell, Tony Hodkinson and Stewart Shepherd of the Hospice Hope support group, who are working extremely hard to advance the campaign and who were at the House today, as well as me as the local Member of Parliament.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of 3,121 residents of North West Leicestershire and surrounding areas
	Declares that...
	The hospice movement deserves the wide-spread admiration, endorsement and devoted support it receives for its work with people who face the end of their lives and for meeting the needs of their families and friends, ensuring that those in their care are accorded respect, privacy and dignity and are valued and responded to with empathy.
	Further declares that...
	Following the closure in 2002 of the Sue Ryder Hospice at Staunton Harold, the local area has waited too long for a successor facility to provide day, respite and terminal care and that patients in North West Leicestershire with a palliative illness are being denied choices because of the lack of access to their own hospice and associated support centre.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the NHS through the Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust and the East Midlands Strategic Health Authority respond and act to meet the growing and pressing needs of many patients and their loved ones for a hospice in our area...
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	 To lie upon the Table.

BURTON'S FOODS PLANT (MORETON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Angela Eagle: On the morning of Friday 11 May, just as I was about to attend a turf-cutting ceremony for a brand new primary care centre at the Victoria central hospital in Liscard—a £14-million public investment—I received phone calls from distressed workers at the Burton's Foods plant in Moreton. They had been gathered together in the canteen and told that the production of biscuits at the plant would cease, making 660 of them redundant. Following that bombshell, staff were not allowed to ask their managers questions, nor were their trade union representatives allowed on site to meet them. Instead, the employees were escorted off company premises by the additional security guards who had been hired specially for the day.
	Despite a history of considerable public sector investment and financial support for the plant, the company chose not to give any prior notice of its decision to the local authority, the trade unions or me. I had visited the plant on several occasions in the past few months and was acutely aware that the review was being conducted. I had received personal assurances that I would be kept in touch with progress, but I was not. In 2003, as the local MP, I had played a part in putting together a package that had involved £4 million of public money. In response, the work force had agreed a painful £12 million cost reduction plan. As part of it, they had endured a three-year pay freeze and changes to working practices designed to safeguard their future. The company's legal obligations under that package ran out in March this year.
	To say that there is shock and anger in the communities of Moreton and Leasowe as they contemplate Burton's actions is an understatement. I feel that I must express that shock and anger to the House on their behalf tonight. There is despair and worry about the future, as well as a sense that the company has taken the considerable sacrifice that local workers have made over the past few years and thrown it back in their faces. I must say that I can see that point of view.
	Five days after the shock of the announcement of 11 May, I convened a meeting in Parliament. It was attended by the chief executive of Burton's Foods, Paul Kitchener, representatives of the Northwest Development Agency, Wirral metropolitan borough council chief executive Steve Maddox, and the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, Tony Woodley. I am grateful to all concerned for their swift response to my request and for the seriousness with which all parties approached that meeting. After a long and intense meeting, the company agreed to share its figures and plans with us in much greater detail. We will now work together to see whether any alternative approach can be taken that might enable us to preserve at least some manufacturing capacity on the Moreton site.
	Burton's Foods has been an important local employer on the Wirral for many years and we wish to do everything that we can to keep it that way. The initial meeting taking that work forward will be in Wallasey town hall tomorrow. The Burton's plant in Moreton is the largest private sector employer in my constituency, with more than 1,000 people on the payroll. Seasonal work can boost that number still further. The announcement ending the manufacture of biscuits on site is a terrible blow for local employment prospects. Generations of my constituents have worked at the plant. Often entire families and succeeding generations of the same families have had access to the employment opportunities that were there. Since the second world war, the biscuit factory has been one of the mainstays of economic activity in the area. Its threatened loss creates a very serious situation which, in my view, deserves urgent Government attention.
	I have asked for this Adjournment debate to make two requests of the Minister. First, I wish to secure my right hon. Friend's unequivocal support in the battle to save a manufacturing capacity at the Moreton plant, if that is at all possible. That is clearly my preferred outcome, despite the bleak prospects currently facing us. Secondly, if the company goes ahead with its plans unchanged, it will be vacating about half of a 29 hectare site currently designated for industrial use and crucial to any prospect of regenerating local employment opportunities. I wish to use this debate to emphasise to my right hon. Friend how important it will be to have Government support and engagement via the Northwest Development Agency to buy the site in order to develop new business and employment opportunities for local people in their own neighbourhood.
	The site hosts two other sizable local employers, Manor Bakeries and Typhoo Tea. Burton's has said that it is maintaining the chocolate refinery and packing work on site, which will retain 100 full-time jobs and 200 seasonal jobs. However, if biscuit manufacturing were to go, I would be concerned to ensure that the viability of the site is safeguarded as an industrial base for the area. The local authority has assured me that it would actively oppose any attempt at changing the land use, so there will be no quick or easy profit to be made from selling the land for housing development. I strongly support that approach. We cannot have new houses and new communities with no local job opportunities. However, in circumstances where Burton's does indeed shed these jobs, we would have to rely on Government grant to invest in new industrial units and create the infrastructure required to attract new employment opportunities to our town.
	Wirral has historically had a very low job density rate. Residents have traditionally travelled across the Mersey to Liverpool or down the peninsular to Chester for work. Prior to the Burton's announcement, the job density in Wirral was 62. That means that there were only 62 jobs per 100 people of working age available on the peninsular itself. To put that figure into perspective, the average job density for the country is 83. The loss of jobs at Burton's will make the already low figure of 62 worse still. It is therefore vital for our future economic prospects that Wirral is assisted in developing new investment opportunities to create local jobs that my constituents can get to even if they do not own a car.
	Can my right hon. Friend tell me what her Dept can do to help us in the current circumstances? Will she ensure that the Northwest Development Agency pays urgent and serious attention to the issue and develops flexible and active responses to enable us to fight for the 660 threatened jobs, as well as to plan for the redevelopment of at least a part of this massive site, with the focus on creating new local employment opportunities?
	Prior to the threatened loss of 660 local jobs, Wirral had worked hard with the private sector and achieved an employment rate of 71 per cent. Clearly, this will be badly impacted should the threatened job losses go ahead. The Government rightly have an aspiration to achieve an 80 per cent. employment rate throughout the country by 2012. The events of the past two weeks have made that target much harder to achieve on the Wirral.
	Whatever we may be able to salvage from an extremely difficult situation, it seems clear that there could be substantial job losses to be absorbed by the communities of Moreton and Leasowe, in the short term at least. I am due to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform soon to discuss the help that his Department could bring to bear should the threatened job cuts materialise. I wish to make a case publicly for a significant package of Government assistance, including financial support for retraining and enhanced support for those who could find themselves searching for alternative employment. Will my right hon. Friend explain what her Department can do to help in those circumstances?
	Finally, my constituents who work in the Moreton factory have felt vulnerable ever since the business was involved in a succession of private equity buy-outs. The latest of those was completed only in January this year, when Duke Street Capital acquired the assets from Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst. As Burton's Foods was so recently acquired, it has to be assumed that the information that led to the closure decision was being shared with the new owners at the time of the sale. However, it was not being shared with the work force, who had delivered in good faith the £12 million cost reduction package, or with the public sector partners, who have done so much to support the business in the past. That cannot be an acceptable state of affairs, and I ask my right hon. Friend to think about what might be done to ensure that appropriate disclosure of such information is required of companies in such circumstances in the future.
	We will leave no stone unturned and no alternative unexplored in our attempt to save biscuit manufacturing at the Moreton site. If we are to stand a chance of success, we will need the Government's engagement and support. I hope that my right hon. Friend can promise me that in her reply tonight.

Margaret Hodge: May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on securing this debate so promptly? I completely understand the enormous worry and distress that has been caused to her constituents by the announcement, made some 10 days ago, that Burton's wants to reduce production at its Moreton site. It is devastating to be told that one will not have a job in any circumstances, but given the particular challenges that my hon. Friend faces in her constituency, the announcement is especially difficult.
	I understand and recognise the need to ensure that my hon. Friend's constituents enjoy the same job opportunities as others elsewhere in the country. That will enable them to move from a dependency on benefits, which so many of her constituents have, to independence in work. My hon. Friend represents a community in which 75 per cent. of her constituents in the local authority area live in the 10 per cent. most deprived areas in the country under the super output area definition. She is right to point out that the job density—I have a figure of 63 jobs per 100 adults; she quoted a figure of 62 jobs per 100 adults—is among the lowest within local authority districts in the north-west region, which itself faces particular problems. She is also right to point out that many people who live in Wirral work outside the borough. I hope that she agrees that one of our tasks is to ensure access to jobs within the wider geographic area, which is an important ambition.
	At the end of the day, the company will have to take its own decision in its own interests. The Government cannot intervene in that decision-making process. With changing markets, particularly in that area, and increasing globalisation, companies such as Burton's are facing tough competitive pressures. However, we can do a number of things. We can manage the economy in a way that ensures that we provide the best conditions in which business can prosper and grow, and our record on that in the past 10 years has been second to none. We have provided consistent macro-economic stability and growth in every quarter in the past 58 quarters.
	Manufacturing is often talked down. We hear a lot of stories about manufacturing jobs going, but manufacturing remains a key point of our economy, accounting for 14 per cent. of GDP, 50 per cent. of exports, three quarters of the research and development carried out by the private sector and almost 3 million good-quality jobs. We work very hard both within the Department of Trade and Industry and elsewhere in government to ensure that manufacturing is not only surviving, but thriving.
	There are many success stories. In the automotive industry, we are now producing almost as many vehicles as we were at the height of the automotive sector in the 1970s. The aerospace industry has a turnover of £29 billion and the pharmaceutical industry, which is important in my hon. Friend's region, has invested £3.2 billion in research and development and produces 18 per cent. of the world's top 100 prescription medicines.
	The Government are investing in my hon. Friend's area. She has the benefit of the investment in the Mersey waterfront regional park, which is a key project in the region. Wallasey forms of part of that plan to create an international waterfront regional park from approximately 135 km of Merseyside sub-regional coastline. The Government are also giving support to businesses in Wallasey. Let me give some examples. We are helping Insulation Product Services Ltd to relocate and invest in plant and machinery. We are helping Organica (UK) Ltd to expand its production facility. We have provided support for R L Plastics Ltd in its expansion. We gave Northern Case Supplies Ltd help towards the purchase of new machinery. We are already investing in my hon. Friend's region and constituency to try to help the manufacturing sector to flourish. Despite the positive national context and that investment locally, I completely understand the very real problems faced by the 660 workers at Burton's Foods when they heard that announcement 10 days ago.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on the swift action that she took to convene the partners here within five days of the announcement. As she knows, tomorrow there is a meeting between Wirral borough council, the Northwest Regional Development Agency and Burton's Foods, and I hope that there will be a positive discussion. Certainly, we have put in our commitment to look at alternatives to these job losses. The regional development agency will look to lead on exploring the business opportunities, considering scenario planning and examining all the options with the company. It will also co-ordinate actions that emerge from any of tomorrow's discussions.
	If I am honest, I am relieved that, following representations that I received from my hon. Friend, we included the site of the Burton's Food factory in the amended assisted area status map. That means that it will be covered as regards investment and assistance that can be given by Government.

Angela Eagle: That is the nub of the issue that faces us if we have to look to develop new infrastructure and local job opportunities on that very large site. Now that the Moreton site has assisted area status, what kind of assistance could we expect if the worst were to happen and we were unable to save biscuit manufacture there?

Margaret Hodge: I do not want to be too prescriptive because I do not want to close down options. However, the advice that I have received, which is high-level advice at this point and would need to be specific to the circumstances, is that we could consider a so-called rescue aid package under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. However, that is an exceptional form of assistance, and I do not want unduly to raise my hon. Friend's expectations or those of her constituents. Certain conditions have to be satisfied. Aid must consist of loan guarantees or loans bearing normal commercial interest rates. The amount must be restricted to the amount needed to keep the firm in business. It must be temporary assistance that is repaid within six months—the maximum time available for a recovery plan. It must be justified on the grounds of social difficulties and must have no adverse effects on the industrial situation in other member states. The package is probably quite restricted in relation to Burton's. If the worst happens and Burton's decides to go ahead with the closure of its facility, there might well be greater opportunities, interestingly enough, in seeking how to use assisted area status to help further.
	As well as tomorrow's meeting, there is a meeting on Friday this week, which will be attended by Jobcentre Plus, the Learning and Skills Council, Wirral council and the regional development agency. That is a preliminary meeting to determine what funding is available to help affected employees if an adverse decision is taken and no solution can be found at the Wednesday meeting. As my hon. Friend knows, both the local authority and the NWRDA intend to preserve the site of Burton's Foods for business use only. As discussions are only at an early stage, there are no concrete plans for that site as yet.
	My hon. Friend asked a number of questions and sought a number of assurances. I can assure her that we will, through the RDA, work to do whatever we can to save the manufacturing capacity at Moreton. If we fail in the first instance with Burton's, we will explore all avenues to ensure that the whole of the 29 hectares site is maintained for industry and that local employment opportunities are open to my hon. Friend's constituents. We will work across Government, as my hon. Friend asked, to support any individuals affected by the reduction in production capacity. I am pleased that she is meeting the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, who will take her through the details of the cross-Government plans that we put in place in circumstances such as these.
	I hear my hon. Friend's concerns about the transparency and accountability of private equity-backed firms. I know that the private equity sector itself is very conscious of these concerns, and I am pleased to tell her that Sir David Walker is heading an independent working party at the moment, which is seeking to develop a voluntary code of practice to enhance both accountability and transparency. The conclusions of the working party will be published in the autumn, and we already have in the Companies Act 2006 a good model for Sir David Walker to follow. The reporting conditions in the Act will, I hope, provide an appropriate model that will find favour with the private equity-backed firms.
	Finally, I can assure my hon. Friend that she will have the Government engagement and support that she wants and needs to work in the very best interests of her constituents in these difficult circumstances. Once again, I congratulate her on her commitment and her effective efforts on their behalf.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.